Skip to content
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

Relax the format of "CLI-friendly name" #442

Closed
mihnjong opened this issue Feb 7, 2018 · 8 comments · Fixed by #452
Closed

Relax the format of "CLI-friendly name" #442

mihnjong opened this issue Feb 7, 2018 · 8 comments · Fixed by #452
Assignees

Comments

@mihnjong
Copy link
Contributor

mihnjong commented Feb 7, 2018

The spec says "As of now, the spec says "The CLI-friendly name of the plan. MUST only contain alphanumeric characters and hyphens (no spaces). MUST be unique within the service. MUST be a non-empty string.", which is too strict to express semantic versions in plan names.

For example, "v1.0.0." violates the rule. Can we make it relax a bit even before going to 3.0?

There're a few discussions before (#305 #154), but it would be great if we allow some special characters such as period and underscores.

@leonwanghui
Copy link
Contributor

I think this proposal could also be applied to Description field, just my thought : )

@duglin
Copy link
Contributor

duglin commented Feb 8, 2018

@leonwanghui what kind of "loosening" would you want to see on the "description" field? Its wide open now aside from it must be a non-empty string if present.

@mihnjong would adding periods to the list of valid chars be sufficient? never mind I see you explicitly asked for . and _ I don't see an issue with that. Want to open a PR?

@leonwanghui
Copy link
Contributor

@duglin What I mean is if there is some use cases to keep this filed required, because I didn't find any explanation in the spec.

@duglin
Copy link
Contributor

duglin commented Feb 8, 2018

@leonwanghui I think its only required for Service and Plan in the /v2/catalog endpoint - which makes some sense since you probably what some kind of info there to help end users know which one to pick. Are you suggesting we make it optional in those spots too? Or are you just asking for some text in the spec to explain why its required?

@leonwanghui
Copy link
Contributor

To me the second option is better, we should avoid any confusion in explanation of all required fields.

@mihnjong
Copy link
Contributor Author

@duglin Let me create a PR early next week.
@leonwanghui IMHO, "A short description of the service/plan" sounds self-explanatory (without description, you will not know what they are).

@mihnjong
Copy link
Contributor Author

Not to break the compliance with k8s service catalog, we can follow the naming style at https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/working-with-objects/names/

up to maximum length of 253 characters and consist of lower case alphanumeric characters, "-", and ".".

@mihnjong
Copy link
Contributor Author

PR #452 is out for review.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants