Correct expected value for source.type #1849
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Sascha Schwarze <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sascha Schwarze <[email protected]>
SaschaSchwarze0
added
the
kind/documentation
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
release-note-none
pull-request-size
bot
added
the
size/S
adambkaplan
approved these changes
Mar 27, 2025
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: SaschaSchwarze0 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 |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changes
While reviewing #1846, I noticed that the value we use for
.spec.source.typeis justOCI. I always assumed it isOCIArtifact- and that's also what the documentation had.And while looking around in that context, I noticed that the validation code did not use the constants defined in the API package.
Submitter Checklist
Release Notes