Skip to content

Conversation

@u-kai
Copy link
Contributor

@u-kai u-kai commented Jan 4, 2026

What does it do ?

This PR introduces a small abstraction for reading provider-specific boolean values
(e.g. "true" / "false") instead of comparing string literals at call sites.

Motivation

This PR is a follow-up to the ongoing AWS alias refactoring discussion.

During review, it was suggested that directly comparing provider-specific string values
(e.g. prop != "true" && prop != "false") is harder to reason about and more error-prone.
Rather than changing the existing approach in-place, this PR isolates the boolean parsing
logic so different approaches can be evaluated side by side.

Note that this PR intentionally does not update the AdjustEndpoints logic in
provider/aws, as that refactor is being handled in a separate, ongoing PR.

More

  • Yes, this PR title follows Conventional Commits
  • Yes, I added unit tests
  • Yes, I updated end user documentation accordingly

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the provider Issues or PRs related to a provider label Jan 4, 2026
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign raffo for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details 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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from szuecs and vflaux January 4, 2026 08:22
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added registry Issues or PRs related to a registry needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jan 4, 2026
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @u-kai. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a github.com member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

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-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jan 4, 2026
@vflaux
Copy link
Contributor

vflaux commented Jan 4, 2026

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jan 4, 2026
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jan 4, 2026

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 20700489134

Details

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • 17 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.01%) to 78.812%

Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
endpoint.go 17 91.01%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 20661074501: 0.01%
Covered Lines: 15812
Relevant Lines: 20063

💛 - Coveralls

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. provider Issues or PRs related to a provider registry Issues or PRs related to a registry size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants