Update naming of config keys, filenames, references and code to remove obsolete terms #103
+180
−171
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
…nary, docker and generated files.
merlante
force-pushed
the
RHCLOUD-33338-update-naming
branch
from
667d163 to
c197e9a
Compare
Rajagopalan-Ranganathan
approved these changes
Jun 18, 2024
|
/lgtm |
lpichler
added a commit
to project-kessel/relations-client-python
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 19, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
…nary, docker and generated files.
PR Template:
Describe your changes
Ticket reference (if applicable)
Fixes #RHCLOUD-33338
Checklist
Are the agreed upon acceptance criteria fulfilled?
Was the 4-eye-principle applied? (async PR review, pairing, ensembling)
Do your changes have passing automated tests and sufficient observability?
Are the work steps you introduced repeatable by others, either through automation or documentation?
The Changes were automatically built, tested, and - if needed, behind a feature flag - deployed to our production environment. (Please check this when the new deployment is done and you could verify it.)
Are the agreed upon coding/architectural practices applied?
Are security needs fullfilled? (e.g. no internal URL)
Is the corresponding Ticket in the right state? (should be on "review" now, put to done when this change made it to production)
For changes to the public API / code dependencies: Was the whole team (or a sufficient amount of ppl) able to review?