Skip to content

Hypervisor: Drop FieldOwner from Create#323

Open
fwiesel wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
remove-field-owners-from-create
Open

Hypervisor: Drop FieldOwner from Create#323
fwiesel wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
remove-field-owners-from-create

Conversation

@fwiesel

@fwiesel fwiesel commented Jul 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Drop the FieldOwner option from the Create call in HypervisorController. Field ownership is only meaningful for Apply/Patch; passing it on Create is a no-op that creates noise in managed-fields.

Part of the branch stack being reorganized for reviewability. Independent of SSA migration — can be merged at any time.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Improved hypervisor resource creation by removing an unnecessary ownership setting.
    • Existing reconciliation behavior remains unchanged.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Review Change Stack

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 0573d102-8da0-4253-b65a-6aa2d3b4acb8

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 14a4933 and 4d5d3ec.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • internal/controller/hypervisor_controller.go

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The hypervisor reconciliation create call no longer passes FieldOwner(HypervisorControllerName). All other reconciliation logic remains unchanged.

Changes

Hypervisor creation

Layer / File(s) Summary
Create without explicit field ownership
internal/controller/hypervisor_controller.go
The controller calls hv.Create(ctx, hypervisor) without the explicit field owner option.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly and concisely describes the main change: removing FieldOwner from the Hypervisor Create call.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
✨ Finishing Touches
📝 Generate docstrings
  • Create stacked PR
  • Commit on current branch
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch remove-field-owners-from-create

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

The controller would become then the owner of all fields,
including the defaults in spec, but they should just be the defaults.
@fwiesel fwiesel force-pushed the remove-field-owners-from-create branch from 142f93d to 4d5d3ec Compare July 9, 2026 18:14
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Merging this branch will not change overall coverage

Impacted Packages Coverage Δ 🤖
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/internal/controller 68.91% (ø)

Coverage by file

Changed files (no unit tests)

Changed File Coverage Δ Total Covered Missed 🤖
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/internal/controller/hypervisor_controller.go 80.00% (ø) 120 96 24

Please note that the "Total", "Covered", and "Missed" counts above refer to code statements instead of lines of code. The value in brackets refers to the test coverage of that file in the old version of the code.

@fwiesel fwiesel marked this pull request as ready for review July 10, 2026 10:28
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 this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant