🌱 Bump KAL, adjust excludes

[sbueringer]

Signed-off-by: Stefan Büringer [email protected]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

[sbueringer]

/hold

@JoelSpeed Looks like kubernetes-sigs/kube-api-linter#140 affected only one exclude? Is this intended? :)

EDIT: Took another look at the PR, okay seems intended. But should other linters also include the parent struct name?

[JoelSpeed]

Looking at the excludes we have, yes, this is the extent of the change at the moment
/approve
/lgtm

The other conditions based errors come from other linters.

Though I'm not sure why we have those excludes, we could add +listType=atomic to silence the list type one without being breaking, and the other, add a reasonable max length that's beyond what we'd expect any conditions list to ever have?

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 54578feb681d69a31609ff91130776a6f1c9894e

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: JoelSpeed

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [JoelSpeed]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[sbueringer]

Though I'm not sure why we have those excludes, we could add +listType=atomic to silence the list type one without being breaking, and the other, add a reasonable max length that's beyond what we'd expect any conditions list to ever have?

Yeah, we could do that.

But I didn't mean the condition excludes specifically. I meant all excludes :)

It would be good if ~ all KAL findings would include the parent struct to allow precise excludes

[sbueringer]

/hold cancel

[JoelSpeed]

Ahh right, so far I've only updated the conditions linter. In the future we probably want to expand the same change to other rules too 🤔

[sbueringer]

Ahh right, so far I've only updated the conditions linter. In the future we probably want to expand the same change to other rules too 🤔

The earlier the better. Later it breaks more excludes 😃. But for CAPI it doesn't really matter as we don't have that much