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

[WIP] [release-v1.11] Alternative fix for eventtype create-delete loop on built in sources #546

Conversation

pierDipi
Copy link
Member

Revert knative#7245 and set the reference namespace if not set to be the EventType namespace

@pierDipi pierDipi changed the title Alternative fix for eventtype create-delete loop on built in sources [WIP] Alternative fix for eventtype create-delete loop on built in sources Feb 26, 2024
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from aliok and creydr February 26, 2024 12:54
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 26, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: pierDipi

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

Signed-off-by: Pierangelo Di Pilato <[email protected]>
@pierDipi pierDipi changed the title [WIP] Alternative fix for eventtype create-delete loop on built in sources [WIP] [release-v1.11] Alternative fix for eventtype create-delete loop on built in sources Feb 26, 2024
Comment on lines -144 to -149
func (r *Reconciler) FinalizeKind(ctx context.Context, source *v1.ApiServerSource) pkgreconciler.Event {
logging.FromContext(ctx).Info("Deleting source")
// Allow for eventtypes to be cleaned up
source.Status.CloudEventAttributes = []duckv1.CloudEventAttributes{}
return nil
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@pierDipi I don't quite understand why we are deleting this, would you be able to explain?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't get why we need this knative#7245 (comment)

Signed-off-by: Pierangelo Di Pilato <[email protected]>
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 26, 2024

@pierDipi: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/411-test-encryption-auth-e2e-aws-411 0302594 link true /test 411-test-encryption-auth-e2e-aws-411
ci/prow/411-test-conformance-aws-411 0302594 link true /test 411-test-conformance-aws-411
ci/prow/411-test-reconciler-aws-411 0302594 link true /test 411-test-reconciler-aws-411
ci/prow/411-test-e2e-aws-411 0302594 link true /test 411-test-e2e-aws-411
ci/prow/414-test-reconciler-aws-414 0302594 link true /test 414-test-reconciler-aws-414

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@pierDipi pierDipi closed this Feb 28, 2024
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.

2 participants