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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

🌱 build(deps): bump github.com/operator-framework/operator-registry from v1.41 to v1.43.1 and github.com/operator-framework/api from v0.23.0 to v0.25.0 #3282

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 4, 2024
Merged

🌱 build(deps): bump github.com/operator-framework/operator-registry from v1.41 to v1.43.1 and github.com/operator-framework/api from v0.23.0 to v0.25.0 #3282

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 4, 2024

Conversation

perdasilva
Copy link
Collaborator

Description of the change:

Motivation for the change:

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

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from ankitathomas and grokspawn May 27, 2024 09:21
@perdasilva perdasilva changed the title Bump/registry [HOLD] Bump/registry May 27, 2024
@perdasilva perdasilva changed the title [HOLD] Bump/registry [HOLD] 🌱 build(deps): bump github.com/operator-framework/operator-registry from v1.41 to v1.43 and github.com/operator-framework/api from v0.23.0 to v0.25.0 May 27, 2024
@perdasilva perdasilva mentioned this pull request May 27, 2024
Closed
11 tasks
@perdasilva perdasilva changed the title [HOLD] 🌱 build(deps): bump github.com/operator-framework/operator-registry from v1.41 to v1.43 and github.com/operator-framework/api from v0.23.0 to v0.25.0 [WIP] 🌱 build(deps): bump github.com/operator-framework/operator-registry from v1.41 to v1.43 and github.com/operator-framework/api from v0.23.0 to v0.25.0 May 27, 2024
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label May 27, 2024
@perdasilva perdasilva mentioned this pull request May 28, 2024
Closed
@perdasilva perdasilva changed the title [WIP] 🌱 build(deps): bump github.com/operator-framework/operator-registry from v1.41 to v1.43 and github.com/operator-framework/api from v0.23.0 to v0.25.0 [WIP] 🌱 build(deps): bump github.com/operator-framework/operator-registry from v1.41 to v1.43.1 and github.com/operator-framework/api from v0.23.0 to v0.25.0 May 28, 2024
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 29, 2024
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jun 3, 2024
@perdasilva perdasilva changed the title [WIP] 🌱 build(deps): bump github.com/operator-framework/operator-registry from v1.41 to v1.43.1 and github.com/operator-framework/api from v0.23.0 to v0.25.0 🌱 build(deps): bump github.com/operator-framework/operator-registry from v1.41 to v1.43.1 and github.com/operator-framework/api from v0.23.0 to v0.25.0 Jun 3, 2024
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jun 3, 2024
@perdasilva perdasilva mentioned this pull request Jun 4, 2024
Closed
@perdasilva perdasilva enabled auto-merge June 4, 2024 14:30
tmshort
tmshort approved these changes Jun 4, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@tmshort tmshort 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 Jun 4, 2024
@perdasilva perdasilva added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 4, 2024
Merged via the queue into operator-framework:master with commit a9bf0da Jun 4, 2024
12 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@tmshort tmshort tmshort approved these changes

@ankitathomas ankitathomas Awaiting requested review from ankitathomas

@grokspawn grokspawn Awaiting requested review from grokspawn

Assignees

@tmshort tmshort

Labels
lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@perdasilva @tmshort @openshift-merge-robot