Remove stale workflow; fix lint#843
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR adds two new GitHub labels to help manage issue lifecycle and prevent automatic closure by stale bots.
- Adds a "keep" label to prevent GitHub from automatically closing issues
- Adds a "stale" label to indicate issues that will be closed soon by automation
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
3b58a45 to
94b83ae
Compare
84aaf04 to
f8306cc
Compare
| Rules FirewallRuleSet `json:"rules"` | ||
| Tags []string `json:"tags,omitempty"` | ||
| Devices DevicesCreationOptions `json:"devices,omitempty"` | ||
| Devices DevicesCreationOptions `json:"devices,omitzero"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is actually a behavior change, that when Devices is not included when defining an instance of FirewallCreateOptions, it will change from an empty map to omitted from request body.
r, e := json.Marshal(linodego.FirewallCreateOptions{})
if e != nil {
log.Fatal(e)
}
fmt.Println(string(r))Original behavior:
{"rules":{"inbound":null,"inbound_policy":"","outbound":null,"outbound_policy":""},"devices":{}}Updated behavior:
{"rules":{"inbound":null,"inbound_policy":"","outbound":null,"outbound_policy":""}}I can't think of any actual effect on the API call except this body change, so I don't think this is a breaking change. But let me know if you think about it differently.
keep and stale labelkeep and stale label; fix lint
|
@zliang-akamai Per our conversation in Slack, do you think it'd make sense to get rid of the stale workflow altogether in this PR? |
|
@lgarber-akamai done, thanks! |
keep and stale label; fix lintstale workflow; fix lint
lgarber-akamai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for handling this!
No description provided.