Skip to content

⚠️ fix: rename owner label and clarify variable naming - #2349

Merged
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 1 commit into
operator-framework:mainfrom
camilamacedo86:fix-owner
Nov 19, 2025
Merged

⚠️ fix: rename owner label and clarify variable naming#2349
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 1 commit into
operator-framework:mainfrom
camilamacedo86:fix-owner

Conversation

@camilamacedo86

@camilamacedo86camilamacedo86 commented Nov 19, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rename ClusterExtensionRevision owner label from owner to owner-name for consistency. Also rename misleading storeLbls variable to revisionAnnotations to clarify it contains annotations, not labels.

This removes the duplicate ClusterExtensionRevisionOwnerLabel constant and uses labels.OwnerNameKey directly throughout the codebase.

⚠️ Breaks the upgrade. However, we did not promoted yet so we can move forward with it: https://github.com/operator-framework/operator-controller/actions/runs/19496963917/job/55801395894?pr=2349#step:4:493 . If we re-install and install would pass.

@camilamacedo86
camilamacedo86 requested a review from a team as a code ownerNovember 19, 2025 09:47
CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings November 19, 2025 09:47
@netlify

netlifyBot commented Nov 19, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

NameLink
🔨 Latest commitf040c87
🔍 Latest deploy loghttps://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/691e0832f42e6f0008724d5e
😎 Deploy Previewhttps://deploy-preview-2349--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

@camilamacedo86camilamacedo86 changed the title 🐛fix: rename owner label and clarify variable naming⚠️ fix: rename owner label and clarify variable namingNov 19, 2025

CopilotAI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull Request Overview

This PR improves code clarity and consistency by consolidating label constants and fixing misleading variable naming. The changes rename the ClusterExtensionRevision owner label from "olm.operatorframework.io/owner" to "olm.operatorframework.io/owner-name" and remove code duplication.

  • Removed duplicate ClusterExtensionRevisionOwnerLabel constant and unified usage through labels.OwnerNameKey
  • Renamed storeLbls variable to revisionAnnotations to accurately reflect that values are stored as annotations, not labels
  • Updated all references across controllers, appliers, and test files for consistency

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file
FileDescription
internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.goRemoved duplicate constant, added labels import, updated all references to use labels.OwnerNameKey
internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextension_controller.goRenamed storeLbls to revisionAnnotations with clarifying comment, updated label reference
internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter.goRemoved unused controllers import, updated all label references to use labels.OwnerNameKey
internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter_test.goRemoved unused controllers import, updated test assertions with new label constant and hardcoded string value
internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller_test.goAdded labels import, updated test fixture to use labels.OwnerNameKey
internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller_internal_test.goAdded labels import, updated all test fixtures to use labels.OwnerNameKey

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@perdasilva

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/approve

@openshift-ci

Copy link
Copy Markdown

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: perdasilva

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-ciopenshift-ciBot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 19, 2025
@camilamacedo86

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@tmshort

⚠️ Breaks the upgrade. However, we did not promoted yet so we can move forward with it: https://github.com/operator-framework/operator-controller/actions/runs/19496963917/job/55801395894?pr=2349#step:4:493 . If we re-install and install would pass.

Could you help us by overwriting it?

},
Labels: map[string]string{
"olm.operatorframework.io/owner": "test-123",
"olm.operatorframework.io/owner-name": "test-123",

@tmshorttmshortNov 19, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should labels.OwnerNameKey be used here, and in other places?
(Which might just be the t.Log() below.)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it is the only place that is not using the const so make sense besides be a test

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@tmshort done

Could you pelase lGTM and allow it get merged?

Rename ClusterExtensionRevision owner label from `owner` to `owner-name`
for consistency. Also rename misleading `storeLbls` variable to
`revisionAnnotations` to clarify it contains annotations, not labels.
This removes the duplicate ClusterExtensionRevisionOwnerLabel constant
and uses labels.OwnerNameKey directly throughout the codebase.
@codecov

codecovBot commented Nov 19, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 74.30%. Comparing base (03eb884) to head (f040c87).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #2349 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 74.23% 74.30% +0.06% 
==========================================
Files 91 91 Lines 7239 7239 ==========================================
+ Hits 5374 5379 +5 + Misses 1433 1429 -4 + Partials 432 431 -1 
FlagCoverage Δ
e2e44.29% <15.38%> (+0.04%)⬆️
experimental-e2e48.60% <84.61%> (+0.12%)⬆️
unit58.54% <92.30%> (ø)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@tmshort

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ciopenshift-ciBot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 19, 2025
@tmshort

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/override e2e/upgrade-experimental-e2e

@openshift-ci

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@tmshort: /override requires failed status contexts, check run or a prowjob name to operate on.
The following unknown contexts/checkruns were given:

  • e2e/upgrade-experimental-e2e

Only the following failed contexts/checkruns were expected:

  • Verify PR title
  • crd-diff
  • e2e-kind
  • extension-developer-e2e
  • go-apidiff
  • go-verdiff
  • goreleaser
  • lint
  • netlify/olmv1/deploy-preview
  • tide
  • unit-test-basic
  • upgrade-e2e
  • upgrade-experimental-e2e
  • verify

If you are trying to override a checkrun that has a space in it, you must put a double quote on the context.

Details

In response to this:

/override e2e/upgrade-experimental-e2e

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.

@tmshort

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/override upgrade-experimental-e2e

@openshift-ci

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@tmshort: Overrode contexts on behalf of tmshort: upgrade-experimental-e2e

Details

In response to this:

/override upgrade-experimental-e2e

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.

@openshift-merge-bot
openshift-merge-botBot merged commit 12ac242 into operator-framework:mainNov 19, 2025
25 of 26 checks passed
@camilamacedo86
camilamacedo86 deleted the fix-owner branch November 20, 2025 08:15
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@camilamacedo86@perdasilva@tmshort