hey folks! i’d like to help @witty-family-13337 and @narrow-vegetable-37489 make progress on their Helm-deploy and OpenAPI reviews. but despite the great design docs and RFCs, i’m personally missing some of the context necessary to give the best reviews there (and a bit too busy/lazy to learn). so maybe we can split up responsibility for tool-semantics vs implementation? if someone(s) is able to be the tool-semantics reviewer for each of these, i’d be happy to review implementation

yeah, happy to help in there; OpenAPI support is something I did toy with on my own as well

Thanks Stu for raising this! I too am lacking in tool semantics knowledge, which is why I haven't weighed in (sorry!) But I'm very happy to take on implementation-specific reviews 🙂

re: OpenAPI. Based on the feedback I already received from @witty-family-13337 in the issue I've had another think and want to redo parts of it in order to piggyback off of

file

and

resource

instead for included files. I think the main reason I added a second target instead was due to how differently

file

and

resource

are read in Python, but that's already a "gotcha" people need to know about when they deal with OpenAPI files in Pants, so it's not like the OpenAPI support will add any more complexity regarding that (and adding a second target for includes won't really solve anything anyway). So a review isn't necessary just yet 🙂

@witty-crayon-22786: feel free to set me as a reviewer on relevant PRs

@fast-nail-55400 I just added you as reviewer to my Helm-deploy PR

I'm familiar with both helm and openapi. I'm happy to review, but I'm not sure when I'll get to it as I'm a little behind at work... I'll see if I can squeeze it in.