Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
add node services URI and fields #445
add node services URI and fields #445
Changes from 1 commit
41d6be8
2310410
b6e3b5b
7522c40
40126f7
f8b8357
07f6b97
485580a
9b0753f
546f9ac
3b18f57
5249a6b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This hasn't been implemented yet in the schema. Adding this won't cause schema validation to fail but do we plan on updating the schema before or after this PR is merged?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If the schema gets updated to include it beforehand, then we can bump its version right away. Otherwise, it can be done later. As mentioned, it doesn't cause an issue regardless at the moment since it is not validated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we leave these keywords as is if we're moving this information to "types". What if we borrowed some of the tags and categories from canarie-api instead. So for finch we could do something like:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. I would like to do this, but until there is a clear-cut version I can refer to, adding these to the keywords will fail schema validation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it. Try now with version 1.2.0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we going to do this in this PR or in a different one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If possible, I'd prefer to work on this only once.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just my 2 cents, since the URI, do not start with http, should we name the new field "uri" instead of "href"? "href" would suggest starting with http usually. Ignore if it has to be "href" for compat or other reasons.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"href"
is required by the schema so we can't change the nameThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A non-http scheme value is a valid URI. It uniquely identifies the resource.
I would prefer to have a
docker://
scheme or similar to be more explicit if permitted, but docker does not seem to like it. However, the values provided in the defaults can be used directly (e.g.docker pull 'registry.hub.docker.com/pavics/weaver:5.0.0'
works, buthttp://registry.hub.docker.com/pavics/weaver:5.0.0
doesn't), so I find them more useful although maybe counter-intuitive.Maybe one way to avoid confusion would be to use
index.docker.io/pavics/weaver:5.0.0
instead, since it does not redirect tohttps://hub.docker.com/
likeregistry.hub.docker.com
does? This alternate location still woks withdocker pull 'index.docker.io/pavics/weaver:5.0.0'
, and it looks slightly more like thetype
definition. The idea of this link is really to have the exact value that can be plugged in the docker-compose serviceimage
field.