Skip to content

Conversation

@perdasilva
Copy link
Collaborator

@perdasilva perdasilva commented Dec 16, 2025

Description of the change:

Adds manual fix removing the patch to include the VendorlessPath function that went missing a while back ref and addressed in #3670

Motivation for the change:

make verify is broken

Architectural changes:

Testing remarks:

Reviewer Checklist

  • Implementation matches the proposed design, or proposal is updated to match implementation
  • Sufficient unit test coverage
  • Sufficient end-to-end test coverage
  • Bug fixes are accompanied by regression test(s)
  • e2e tests and flake fixes are accompanied evidence of flake testing, e.g. executing the test 100(0) times
  • tech debt/todo is accompanied by issue link(s) in comments in the surrounding code
  • Tests are comprehensible, e.g. Ginkgo DSL is being used appropriately
  • Docs updated or added to /doc
  • Commit messages sensible and descriptive
  • Tests marked as [FLAKE] are truly flaky and have an issue
  • Code is properly formatted

@jianzhangbjz
Copy link
Member

That's great! I tried to fix this issue in #3720. It's better to fix it in a separate PR here.
/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 16, 2025
Makefile Outdated
Comment on lines 344 to 346
# overlay_file=$$(mktemp "$(CURDIR)/hack/overlays/goimports_overlay.XXXXXX.json"); \
# trap 'rm -f "$$overlay_file"' EXIT; \
# printf '{\n "Replace": {\n "%s/vendor/golang.org/x/tools/imports/vendorlesspath.go": "%s/hack/overlays/goimports_vendorlesspath.go"\n }\n}\n' "$(CURDIR)" "$(CURDIR)" > "$$overlay_file"; \
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need to keep these lines around commented out?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🤦 no...

Copy link
Member

@rashmigottipati rashmigottipati left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 16, 2025
Copy link
Member

@anik120 anik120 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 16, 2025
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 16, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: anik120, jianzhangbjz, rashmigottipati

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details 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

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 16, 2025
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 58664cc into operator-framework:master Dec 16, 2025
12 of 13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants