Skip to content

update to jsonpath-rust 1#1863

Merged
clux merged 1 commit into
kube-rs:mainfrom
tottoto:update-to-jsonpath-rust-1
Dec 13, 2025
Merged

update to jsonpath-rust 1#1863
clux merged 1 commit into
kube-rs:mainfrom
tottoto:update-to-jsonpath-rust-1

Conversation

@tottoto
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@tottoto tottoto commented Dec 12, 2025

Updates to jsonpath-rust 1.

@tottoto tottoto marked this pull request as draft December 12, 2025 23:04
@tottoto tottoto force-pushed the update-to-jsonpath-rust-1 branch from 712112e to 11d43fb Compare December 13, 2025 07:42
@tottoto tottoto marked this pull request as ready for review December 13, 2025 07:49
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@clux clux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks for this. looks generally sensible.

quick question; were you able to find release notes / changelog for 1.0 somewhere? the linked repo is out of date and was only able to see a diff on diff.rs (and that is enormous).

Comment on lines +508 to +515
let p = path.trim_matches(|c| c == '"' || c == '{' || c == '}');
if p.starts_with('$') {
p
} else if p.starts_with('.') {
&format!("${p}")
} else {
&format!("$.{p}")
}
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

some new jsonpath-rust api changes that is different from kubernetes expectations?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes. The main difference comes from jsonpath-rust following RFC 9535 more strictly in this versions. Behaviors around the root selector ($) and leading dots are tightened, which seem different from kubectl’s more permissive jsonpath implementation.

quick question; were you able to find release notes / changelog for 1.0 somewhere? the linked repo is out of date and was only able to see a diff on diff.rs (and that is enormous).

What I referred to was the Important note section in the repository’s README. Based on the RFC 9535 notes there, I tried the changes by testing the actual behavior and migrated accordingly.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, I see. Thank you.

@clux clux added the changelog-change changelog change category for prs label Dec 13, 2025
@clux clux added this to the 3.0.0 milestone Dec 13, 2025
@clux clux merged commit 262f475 into kube-rs:main Dec 13, 2025
16 checks passed
@tottoto tottoto deleted the update-to-jsonpath-rust-1 branch December 13, 2025 09:53
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Dec 13, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 70.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 74.7%. Comparing base (ef33a29) to head (11d43fb).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
kube-client/src/client/auth/mod.rs 70.0% 3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            main   #1863     +/-   ##
=======================================
- Coverage   74.8%   74.7%   -0.0%     
=======================================
  Files         84      84             
  Lines       7950    7953      +3     
=======================================
- Hits        5941    5940      -1     
- Misses      2009    2013      +4     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
kube-client/src/client/auth/mod.rs 49.8% <70.0%> (-0.2%) ⬇️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

changelog-change changelog change category for prs

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants