-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
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
🌱 Fix godoc manually by simply replacing existing comments #11543
Conversation
@tsuzu: The label(s) 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-sigs/prow repository. |
Hi @tsuzu. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the 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-sigs/prow repository. |
/area documentation |
84ab8c1
to
a7e8749
Compare
/ok-to-test |
cc @JoelSpeed |
LGTM CRDs will now need to be regenerated to get the verify main to pass Does this get us now to a point where all fields start with the serialized string? |
Not yet. #11238 (comment) Fix existing comments to start with serialized names
Add missing comments
|
@JoelSpeed @tsuzu What are the next steps for this PR? |
As long as we have something that prevents us from regressing on this in the future in place, I'm happy with this. And IIRC, we did get that linter set up? |
I'm not aware of any linter that has been added to our CI. In general I'm okay with merging improvements even without the linter (we can continue the linter discussion on the corresponding issue). I was mostly wondering if you want to merge the current PR as is or if there are additional changes we want to make with this PR |
Ahh, I thought @tsuzu had added something? Will continue the linter discussion on wednesday's call |
/lgtm |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 291d213829feaa082c057a00f38f4740a58e9918
|
@tsuzu Can you please squash to get rid of the merge commit? I'm not sure if I remember correctly but we might have some trouble with merge commits. |
I'll prepare a PR for
Yes. I developed a tiny linter/formatter, but not included in cluster-api. I'm looking forward to the new linter! |
I would say no. (sorry which ones are you referring to?) If the linter would detect false positives the linter or linter config should be changed |
With the linter I've been working on, you can tell it, in the config, to only run on specific paths, so we could do something like below to make sure it only runs for the api folder
|
f5cba84
to
c4c1dd0
Compare
Thx! /lgtm |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: bac537a3cc2c3e783900a150f1a7154433f50973
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: sbueringer 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 |
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):part of #11238
successor of #11273
/area docs