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

tool: fix the types.go template #3608

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 5, 2025

Conversation

jingyih
Copy link
Collaborator

@jingyih jingyih commented Feb 5, 2025

Not sure if there was a merge error, but I noticed this while generating the new resources.

@jingyih
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jingyih commented Feb 5, 2025

/assign @yuwenma

Copy link
Collaborator

@yuwenma yuwenma 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

Suggest to add a flag to skip adding the observedState. Some resources have specialties and this could cause confusions

@google-oss-prow google-oss-prow bot added the lgtm label Feb 5, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: yuwenma

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

@jingyih
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jingyih commented Feb 5, 2025

Suggest to add a flag to skip adding the observedState. Some resources have specialties and this could cause confusions

From my experience, I typically decide whether to keep or remove observedState AFTER the types have been generated. Instead of using a flag, it might be simpler to just delete or comment out observedState afterward. Using a flag complicates the workflow: first generate the types -> realize observedState isn't needed -> manually delete the generated files and regenerate them.

@jingyih
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jingyih commented Feb 5, 2025

Rebased to resolve a merge conflict.

@yuwenma
Copy link
Collaborator

yuwenma commented Feb 5, 2025

/lgtm

@google-oss-prow google-oss-prow bot added the lgtm label Feb 5, 2025
@google-oss-prow google-oss-prow bot merged commit f09d1f0 into GoogleCloudPlatform:master Feb 5, 2025
18 checks passed
@jingyih jingyih deleted the fix branch February 7, 2025 01:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants