Skip to content

Add Delete command to gRPC #2212

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 5 commits into from
Jun 27, 2023
Merged

Conversation

MatteoPologruto
Copy link
Contributor

@MatteoPologruto MatteoPologruto commented Jun 13, 2023

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

See how to contribute

  • The PR has no duplicates (please search among the Pull Requests
    before creating one)
  • The PR follows
    our contributing guidelines
  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
  • Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
  • UPGRADING.md has been updated with a migration guide (for breaking changes)
  • configuration.schema.json updated if new parameters are added.

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Code enhancement

What is the current behavior?

It is not possible to entirely remove a key from the config file using the gRPC interface. Setting it to an empty object using either Merge or SetValue would not work because viper would set it back to its default value, which is the one written in the config when it was loaded.
The only workaround would be to set the nested key to empty objects using the above mentioned commands:

network:
  proxy: ""
  user_agent_ext: ""

What is the new behavior?

The key can be deleted from the runtime configuration using the Delete command.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change, and is titled accordingly?

No

@MatteoPologruto MatteoPologruto added type: enhancement Proposed improvement topic: infrastructure Related to project infrastructure labels Jun 13, 2023
@MatteoPologruto MatteoPologruto self-assigned this Jun 13, 2023
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 13, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 93.93% and project coverage change: +0.03 🎉

Comparison is base (eca9d9a) 62.95% compared to head (9ae9461) 62.99%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2212      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   62.95%   62.99%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         220      220              
  Lines       19478    19496      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits        12263    12281      +18     
  Misses       6132     6132              
  Partials     1083     1083              
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 62.99% <93.93%> (+0.03%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
internal/cli/config/delete.go 88.88% <71.42%> (-2.54%) ⬇️
commands/board/list.go 60.19% <100.00%> (+0.19%) ⬆️
commands/daemon/settings.go 92.78% <100.00%> (+2.50%) ⬆️

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@MatteoPologruto MatteoPologruto marked this pull request as ready for review June 13, 2023 11:50
@MatteoPologruto MatteoPologruto linked an issue Jun 13, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
3 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
topic: infrastructure Related to project infrastructure type: enhancement Proposed improvement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Network configuration items can't be unset
2 participants