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

🌱 (cleanup): remove duplication of version implementation #1728

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 7, 2025

Conversation

camilamacedo86
Copy link
Contributor

@camilamacedo86 camilamacedo86 commented Feb 7, 2025

Before catalogd, the operator-controller requires a code implementation to set the Version. However, now both projects are the same and have the same version. Therefore, there is no longer a reason to keep both.

Motivated by: #1707

Before catalogd and operator-controller requires have a code implementation to set the Version.
However, now both projects are the same and have the same version. Therefore, has no longer reason to keep both
@camilamacedo86 camilamacedo86 requested a review from a team as a code owner February 7, 2025 11:32
Copy link

netlify bot commented Feb 7, 2025

Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 6d86410
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/olmv1/deploys/67a5ef364f02ef0008af83d3
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-1728--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@camilamacedo86
Copy link
Contributor Author

camilamacedo86 commented Feb 7, 2025

@joelanford

WDYT? Can we move forward with this one already?

An alternative solution would be to create a sub-directory like shared, as @azych suggested, and place the version there. However, IMHO, all libraries might be used for both.

The only component-specific part is the controllers. In fact, the feature gates could be shared as well. Given that, I’d argue for centralizing everything rather than introducing a more complex structure.

That said, I’ll defer to you since you might have a different long-term vision.

c/c @LalatenduMohanty

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 7, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.24%. Comparing base (f6b1130) to head (6d86410).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
catalogd/cmd/catalogd/main.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1728      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.99%   68.24%   +0.24%     
==========================================
  Files          59       58       -1     
  Lines        4993     4988       -5     
==========================================
+ Hits         3395     3404       +9     
+ Misses       1358     1342      -16     
- Partials      240      242       +2     
Flag Coverage Δ
e2e 52.84% <ø> (-0.42%) ⬇️
unit 55.45% <0.00%> (+0.35%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@joelanford joelanford added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 7, 2025
Merged via the queue into operator-framework:main with commit d72e551 Feb 7, 2025
22 of 23 checks passed
@camilamacedo86 camilamacedo86 deleted the mono-version branch February 7, 2025 14:28
camilamacedo86 added a commit to camilamacedo86/operator-controller that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2025
camilamacedo86 added a commit to camilamacedo86/operator-controller that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2025
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants