-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 184
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
onboarding key generator package rename as it does not implies what it does #2452
Conversation
rchikatw
commented
Feb 8, 2024
•
edited
Loading
edited
- renaming the package for the onboarding job as it does not imply what it does. Renamed to onboarding-validation-keys-generator
be7ae0f
to
e265a58
Compare
deploy/ocs-operator/manifests/onboarding-secret-generator-binding.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
deploy/ocs-operator/manifests/onboarding-secret-generator-role.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
deploy/ocs-operator/manifests/onboarding-secret-generator-sa.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm in general agreement with Ohad. All the renaming changes have nothing to do with what this PR claims to be doing, and most of them don't make a whole lot of sense per the project's naming conventions. Please move them to a separate PR.
aaab7ab
to
e79ba81
Compare
e595046
to
bd4d104
Compare
renaming the package for the onboarding key generator job as it does not imply what it does Signed-off-by: rchikatw <[email protected]>
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: nb-ohad, rchikatw 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 |
2225e7f
into
red-hat-storage:main
@rchikatw pls make sure that you inform build team about Dockerfile changes. |
Hah, I had an earlier review comment that didn't get sent... might as well at least actually publish it. I don't see why there needs to be a change to the directory name at all, it just looks like introducing needless build changes for the sake of being more verbose. And, as it was, it seemed fine that the directory name itself was kinda vague since the artifacts produced from it are an implementation detail. |
Sure...Thanks for pointing that out |