-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
✨ Support organizations. #484
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
dd117f2
:sparkles: Support organizations.
jortel dedd036
checkpoint
jortel 0a546a3
checkpoint
jortel 45829fb
checkpoint
jortel 5c5344f
checkpoint
jortel 96498e0
checkpoint
jortel 8886113
checkpoint
jortel 958d00e
checkpoint
jortel File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
🧩 Analysis chain
Critical: Schema structure doesn't match the described nested hierarchy.
The PR description states this adds support for "organizations with nested spaces and applications" (e.g., Organization "A" has space "Zoo" with applications "Lion" and "Tiger"). However, the current implementation defines three flat, parallel arrays (
organizations,spaces,names) with no structural relationship between them.This flat structure cannot express:
Based on the past review comments and PR description, the schema should use a nested structure where:
nameand optionalspacesarraynameand optionalapplicationsarrayAdditionally, no
requiredfields are specified in this schema version. Based on your earlier comment ("Only the root 'organizations' and 'name' fields should be required"), please add:However, since "name" is now inside the
namesarray (not a root field), please clarify whether you meantnamesshould be required at the root level, or if the current flat structure is intentional despite the nested description in the PR objectives.Would you like me to generate a nested schema structure that matches the PR description, or is the flat structure intentional?
I'll verify this review comment by examining the actual file and its context.
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 2707
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 2707
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 3070
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 24
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 1012
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 62501
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 1583
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 57
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 1103
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 7500
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 72989
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 56944
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 2707
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 117584
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 2165
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 122
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 58
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 0
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 0
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 0
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 1575
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 2707
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 165
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 611
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 59
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 404
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 2383
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 0
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 0
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 0
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 327
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 2165
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 219
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 0
Critical: filter schema replaced nested organization→spaces→applications with flat arrays — restore nesting or confirm intentional breaking change
The change in roles/tackle/templates/customresource-schema.yml.j2 (lines ~87–109) removed the nested organization objects and replaced them with parallel arrays (organizations, spaces, names) and omitted required fields. This prevents expressing which spaces/apps belong to which organization and breaks the PR's stated "organizations with nested spaces and applications" behavior.
roles/tackle/templates/customresource-schema.yml.j2: lines 87–109.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
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 is intentional. The schema provides for 3 flat optional lists.
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.
@jortel, thank you for the clarification! I understand now that the flat structure with three optional lists is the intended design for the filter schema.
I've noted this for future reference so we don't raise similar concerns about this design choice.
✏️ Learnings added