Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add validation for "cencel" of "taskrun" and "pipelinerun" #2386

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 16, 2020

Conversation

vincent-pli
Copy link
Member

@vincent-pli vincent-pli commented Apr 14, 2020

Changes

Need validation when cancel taskrun and pipelinerun.

Submitter Checklist

These are the criteria that every PR should meet, please check them off as you
review them:

See the contribution guide for more details.

Double check this list of stuff that's easy to miss:

Reviewer Notes

If API changes are included, additive changes must be approved by at least two OWNERS and backwards incompatible changes must be approved by more than 50% of the OWNERS, and they must first be added in a backwards compatible way.

Release Notes

When cancel a Pipelinerun or Taskrun, user should update spec with exactly "PipelineRunCancelled" and "TaskRunCancelled" or the webhook will reject the request with ErrInvalidValue and error message.

@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes Trying to make the CLA bot happy with ppl from different companies work on one commit label Apr 14, 2020
@tekton-robot tekton-robot requested review from abayer and a user April 14, 2020 02:18
@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Apr 14, 2020
@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

The following is the coverage report on pkg/.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File Old Coverage New Coverage Delta
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipelinerun_validation.go 95.5% 96.0% 0.5
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/taskrun_validation.go 97.2% 97.4% 0.2

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 15, 2020

/approve

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 15, 2020
Copy link
Member

@vdemeester vdemeester left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 15, 2020
@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sbwsg, vdemeester

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@bobcatfish
Copy link
Collaborator

thanks for fixing htis @vincent-pli ! request: could you possibly fill in the release notes section in the PR description? i could imagine this impacting users if they were putting the wrong value in this field and suddenly validation will catch it

@vincent-pli
Copy link
Member Author

@bobcatfish
Done, thanks.

@vincent-pli
Copy link
Member Author

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-integration-tests

@tekton-robot tekton-robot merged commit 6c4f6b0 into tektoncd:master Apr 16, 2020
@afrittoli afrittoli added the kind/misc Categorizes issue or PR as a miscellaneuous one. label Apr 30, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cla: yes Trying to make the CLA bot happy with ppl from different companies work on one commit kind/misc Categorizes issue or PR as a miscellaneuous one. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants