🌱 Improve open API docs #6878
🌱 Improve open API docs #6878
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
|
lgtm pending squash from my side |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: vincepri 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
/cherry-pick release-1.2 |
|
@sbueringer: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-1.2 in a new PR and assign it to you. In response to this:
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. |
|
/hold |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
fabriziopandini
force-pushed
the
improve-open-api-docs
branch
from
bf5ed6f to
be103c1
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
lgtm
|
/hold cancel |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
There it is :) /lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
@sbueringer: new pull request created: #6883 In response to this:
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. |
| Required: true, | ||
| Name: "name", | ||
| In: "path", | ||
| Description: "The handler name. Handlers for the same hook within a single external component implementing Runtime Extensions must have different names", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like this statement implies that if handlers do not serve the same hook they can share the same name but any two handlers of a single external component irrespective of if they serve the same hook should have different names. If not there will be a collision in the registry.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If not there will be a collision in the registry.
I think the discovery would already fail before we add anything to the registry as we validate that the Names have to be unique there.
Independent of that. I think you're right. Can you open a PR to improve this description?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the discovery would already fail before we add anything to the registry as we validate that the Names have to be unique there.
You are right. It would not pass the discovery response validation.
Independent of that. I think you're right. Can you open a PR to improve this description?
PR: #6896
What this PR does / why we need it:
Improves open API specification docs for Runtime Hooks