You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Ratify has introduced new type field for CLI scenarios of verifier allowing for multiple instances of same verifier with unique config to exist at once. Right now, the type field used in CLI maps to the name field in CRD and the uniquely identifier name in CLI is equivalent to CRDs metadata.name. Moving forward, we should switch name field to type in CRDs.
This will require:
introducing Type field to all CRD spec of store, verifier, and policy
support both Name and Type field until v2.0
update all docs spec to use type and add deprecation warning in spec to name field.
Anything else you would like to add?
No response
Are you willing to submit PRs to contribute to this feature?
Yes, I am willing to implement it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @junczhu , we discussed in community meeting. Please help us understand if both property is available now, the plan is to deprecate "name" in ratify v2.0.0
Hi @junczhu , we discussed in community meeting. Please help us understand if both property is available now, the plan is to deprecate "name" in ratify v2.0.0
Property is currently not available in CRDs, we may need to introducing the Type field as mentioned above
What would you like to be added?
Ratify has introduced new
type
field for CLI scenarios of verifier allowing for multiple instances of same verifier with unique config to exist at once. Right now, thetype
field used in CLI maps to thename
field in CRD and the uniquely identifiername
in CLI is equivalent to CRDsmetadata.name
. Moving forward, we should switchname
field totype
in CRDs.This will require:
Type
field to all CRD spec of store, verifier, and policyName
andType
field until v2.0type
and add deprecation warning in spec toname
field.Anything else you would like to add?
No response
Are you willing to submit PRs to contribute to this feature?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: