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

Retrurn error if exist duplicate key in filter option #575

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 19, 2019

Conversation

MIBc
Copy link
Contributor

@MIBc MIBc commented Dec 19, 2019

Fixes #569

Proposed Changes

*Return error if user set duplicate key in --filter option. For example, kn trigger create --filter type=bla --filter type=blub test.

@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CLA. label Dec 19, 2019
@knative-prow-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @MIBc. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a knative 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.

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.

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Dec 19, 2019
@navidshaikh
Copy link
Collaborator

/ok-to-test

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-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 Dec 19, 2019
@knative-metrics-robot
Copy link

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-knative-client-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File Old Coverage New Coverage Delta
pkg/kn/commands/trigger/update_flags.go 96.2% 96.7% 0.5

@MIBc
Copy link
Contributor Author

MIBc commented Dec 19, 2019

/retest

Copy link
Collaborator

@navidshaikh navidshaikh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
/approve

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 19, 2019
@knative-prow-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: MIBc, navidshaikh

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

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 19, 2019
@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot merged commit 2b518d1 into knative:master Dec 19, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@rhuss rhuss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks, looks good to me !

While we are at it: both methods you changed have quite some overlap. I would prefer to have a single method, which takes another boolean parameter, whether to check for filters to delete. Thinking again, we could even keep the removal of types even for create as a no-op, as you can't easily use filter key with a trailing dash anyway (how would you update those ?). So we could keep a single method for both create & update.

Would you mind to combine these two methods already within this PR ?

@rhuss
Copy link
Contributor

rhuss commented Dec 19, 2019

or then maybe in a next PR ;-)

@rhuss
Copy link
Contributor

rhuss commented Dec 19, 2019

(was too slow ...)

@MIBc
Copy link
Contributor Author

MIBc commented Dec 19, 2019

Sure, I will do.

@rhuss
Copy link
Contributor

rhuss commented Dec 19, 2019

@MIBc If you like, you could also jump on #577 which I just have created. I think this would be the most comprehensive solution.

@MIBc
Copy link
Contributor Author

MIBc commented Dec 19, 2019

Yes. I will try. Thanks!

coryrc pushed a commit to coryrc/client that referenced this pull request May 14, 2020
Based on the feedback for the tool, this change addresses:

  1. Wrapping JSON like display inside a HTML page and color code
  covered(green) and notcovered(red) fields for better readability.
  2. Fixes the total field calculation by taking into account ignored
  fields.
  3. Ensures we visit a node type only once and prune the traversal if
  a same node type appears again in other parts of resource tree.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CLA. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Error when multiple filter with the same name are given for kn trigger
6 participants