Skip to content

Conversation

@joejstuart
Copy link
Member

Remove this option from the imageUrl. As it adds no value to the user and just complicates things.

Remove this option from the imageUrl. As it adds
no value to the user and just complicates things.
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 0.55%. Comparing base (dc6f579) to head (e232de5).

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main    #484   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   0.55%   0.55%           
=====================================
  Files          6       6           
  Lines        363     363           
=====================================
  Hits           2       2           
  Misses       361     361           
Flag Coverage Δ
api 0.64% <ø> (ø)
controller 0.00% <ø> (ø)
schema 0.00% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
api/v1alpha1/enterprisecontractpolicy_types.go 100.00% <ø> (ø)

@simonbaird
Copy link
Member

Will this break people who do have the https in their urls?

@simonbaird simonbaird changed the title Remove https option. Remove optional https from imageUrl regex Mar 5, 2025
@simonbaird
Copy link
Member

What's the motivation? Just because it's useless?

@simonbaird
Copy link
Member

@joejstuart I guess my questions are still relevant. FWIW I'm not against merging this if we're confident it won't break anyone.

@joejstuart
Copy link
Member Author

joejstuart commented May 2, 2025

What's the motivation? Just because it's useless?

I completely forgot about this. Yes, it's useless and we're using the component.ConainerImage in ec-cli which does not have the https so it would add more work for us if someone did use the protocol. And nobody is using the feature yet, so we're safe to change it.

@simonbaird
Copy link
Member

Rebase needed?

@Acepresso
Copy link
Contributor

Acepresso commented Jul 9, 2025

LGTM. Don't forget to rebase so we have the corresponding unit-test verify this change.

Copy link
Contributor

@robnester-rh robnester-rh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants