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

feat: Promote Apigee Envgroup to v1beta1 #3544

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 29, 2025

Conversation

Camila-B
Copy link
Contributor

Change description

Fixes #

Tests you have done

  • Run make ready-pr to ensure this PR is ready for review.
  • Perform necessary E2E testing for changed resources.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@maqiuyujoyce Eventually we want to drop this step about configuring the service mapping for direct resource. How does your PR go?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah we will need to rebase or fix up the code after #3443 merges

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

kk. I saw the full test suite has coverage for this. And I like the asSortedCopy comparison. Good job!

@Camila-B Camila-B changed the title feat: Promoto Apigee Envgroup to v1beta1 feat: Promote Apigee Envgroup to v1beta1 Jan 28, 2025
@Camila-B Camila-B marked this pull request as ready for review January 28, 2025 18:39
@Camila-B
Copy link
Contributor Author

/assign @jasonvigil

@Camila-B Camila-B force-pushed the promote-to-beta branch 2 times, most recently from 65cfc3e to 4e304b9 Compare January 29, 2025 00:10
@Camila-B Camila-B force-pushed the promote-to-beta branch 2 times, most recently from b9fcc46 to 807f4a2 Compare January 29, 2025 00:30
@Camila-B
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@jasonvigil
Copy link
Collaborator

/lgtm

@jasonvigil jasonvigil requested a review from yuwenma January 29, 2025 03:34
@google-oss-prow google-oss-prow bot added the lgtm label Jan 29, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@yuwenma yuwenma left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you also update the fixture test create.yaml and update.yaml to use the Beta APIs?

@@ -64,6 +64,7 @@
[missing_field] crd=alloydbinstances.alloydb.cnrm.cloud.google.com version=v1beta1: field ".spec.gceZone" is not set in unstructured objects
[missing_field] crd=alloydbinstances.alloydb.cnrm.cloud.google.com version=v1beta1: field ".spec.networkConfig.authorizedExternalNetworks[].cidrRange" is not set in unstructured objects
[missing_field] crd=alloydbusers.alloydb.cnrm.cloud.google.com version=v1beta1: field ".spec.databaseRoles[]" is not set in unstructured objects
[missing_field] crd=apigeeenvgroups.apigee.cnrm.cloud.google.com version=v1beta1: field ".spec.hostnames[]" is not set in unstructured objects
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We need full field coverage before promoting to Beta.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe this test (originally added in #3435) is broken. It does not detect if list fields are being set in the fixtures. We should fix this separately; it shouldn't block this PR. CC @acpana

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Created #3571 to track this issue.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We no longer need to update this file. Here's an example

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For Apigee, we need to write custom fuzz tests because there is no proto-based API. The new fuzz framework requires proto-based mappers, so we (unfortunately) cannot use it. Similarly, I don't think this should be a blocker. CC @acpana

@google-oss-prow google-oss-prow bot removed the lgtm label Jan 29, 2025
@yuwenma
Copy link
Collaborator

yuwenma commented Jan 29, 2025

/approve

Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: yuwenma

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

@jasonvigil
Copy link
Collaborator

/lgtm

@google-oss-prow google-oss-prow bot added the lgtm label Jan 29, 2025
@google-oss-prow google-oss-prow bot merged commit 93b3f98 into GoogleCloudPlatform:master Jan 29, 2025
18 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants