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

[v5.0] fix swagger doc #22389

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 16, 2024
Merged

Conversation

Luap99
Copy link
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 commented Apr 16, 2024

Backport of #22357 to fix the swagger generation on the 5.0 branch.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

jwhonce and others added 3 commits April 16, 2024 12:07
First of all this removes the need for a network connection, second
renovate can update the version as it is tracked in go.mod.

However the real important part is that the binary downloads are
broken[1]. For some reason the swagger created with them does not
include all the type information for the examples. However when building
from source the same thing works fine.

[1] go-swagger/go-swagger#2842

Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <[email protected]>
Commit 668d517 moved a lot of type definitions and by that also
copied a bucnh of swagger:model comments, this caused swagger to create
a incorrect yaml that can no longer be parsed by redoc due
"Self-referencing circular pointer".

The yaml basically defined the type with a name and the pointed to the
same name definition again so it caused a infinitive recursion where
redoc just throws an error but the swagger style ignored the case so it
seemed like it worked but obviously the type information was not
working.

Fixes containers#22351

Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <[email protected]>
@Luap99 Luap99 added the No New Tests Allow PR to proceed without adding regression tests label Apr 16, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 16, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Luap99

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

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 16, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added kind/api-change Change to remote API; merits scrutiny and removed approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Apr 16, 2024
Copy link

Ephemeral COPR build failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

@baude
Copy link
Member

baude commented Apr 16, 2024

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 16, 2024
@Luap99 Luap99 added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 16, 2024
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 04d45be into containers:v5.0 Apr 16, 2024
90 of 92 checks passed
@Luap99 Luap99 deleted the 5.0-swagger branch April 16, 2024 15:11
@edsantiago edsantiago mentioned this pull request May 15, 2024
@stale-locking-app stale-locking-app bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Jul 16, 2024
@stale-locking-app stale-locking-app bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 16, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. kind/api-change Change to remote API; merits scrutiny lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. No New Tests Allow PR to proceed without adding regression tests release-note-none
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants