Add tobikoPatch parameter for custom patches #3230
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
belolipa
force-pushed
the
feature/tobiko-patch
branch
2 times, most recently
from
645ab24 to
04599c6
Compare
|
Build failed (check pipeline). Post https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/beb4ca6bec964765a2ce4ffd9f9c78c0 ✔️ openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider SUCCESS in 1h 55m 58s |
belolipa
force-pushed
the
feature/tobiko-patch
branch
from
04599c6 to
05f6b85
Compare
| @@ -206,6 +207,7 @@ cifmw_test_operator_tobiko_config: | |||
| containerImage: "{{ stage_vars_dict.cifmw_test_operator_tobiko_image }}:{{ stage_vars_dict.cifmw_test_operator_tobiko_image_tag }}" | |||
| testenv: "{{ stage_vars_dict.cifmw_test_operator_tobiko_testenv }}" | |||
| version: "{{ stage_vars_dict.cifmw_test_operator_tobiko_version }}" | |||
| patch: "{{ stage_vars_dict.cifmw_test_operator_tobiko_patch | default(omit) }}" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would suggest either having only default(omit) and no default value on line 182 or default({}). Not sure which approach is better but right now it's redundant to set it 2 times. To me it looks like default(omit) is better, but will wait for other reviews.
@danpawlik Could you perhaps review this?
This pull request introduces a new parameter, tobikoPatch, to the Tobiko Custom Resource to allow for testing against specific. [OSPRH-11286]