Skip to content

improve: blocklist of problematic resources for previous version annotation #2774

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

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

csviri
Copy link
Collaborator

@csviri csviri commented Apr 28, 2025

Signed-off-by: Attila Mészáros [email protected]

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Apr 28, 2025
@csviri csviri changed the title feat: blacklist of problematic resources for previous version annotation improve: blacklist of problematic resources for previous version annotation Apr 28, 2025
csviri added 3 commits April 28, 2025 14:47
Signed-off-by: Attila Mészáros <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Attila Mészáros <[email protected]>
@csviri
Copy link
Collaborator Author

csviri commented Apr 29, 2025

related issues:
#2509
#2553

Signed-off-by: Attila Mészáros <[email protected]>
@csviri csviri changed the title improve: blacklist of problematic resources for previous version annotation improve: blocklist of problematic resources for previous version annotation Apr 29, 2025
@csviri csviri marked this pull request as ready for review April 29, 2025 13:00
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Apr 29, 2025
*
* @return blocklist of resource classes where the previous version annotation won't be used.
*/
default List<Class<? extends HasMetadata>> previousAnnotationUsageBlocklist() {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would suggest also documenting the default implementation in the javadoc.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@csviri csviri Apr 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure that is needed / that helpful since users can just open the code and see the defaults, also we don't do it for other configs.

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.

3 participants