Allow . in param/result names via subscript.

[mattmoor]

This change allow folks to use . in parameter names (e.g. dev.mattmoor.my-param), and reference them via the subscript operator (e.g. params["dev.mattmoor.my-param"]) to avoid ambiguity introduced by the mixing of .s.

TEP: tektoncd/community#503

/kind enhancement
/hold

Holding until the TEP is merged.

Submitter Checklist

As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:

• Docs included if any changes are user facing
• Tests included if any functionality added or changed
• Follows the commit message standard
• Meets the Tekton contributor standards (including
  functionality, content, code)
• Release notes block below has been filled in or deleted (only if no user facing changes)

Release Notes

Parameter and result names may now contain `.` and be referenced via the subscript operator (e.g. `$(params["foo.bar"])`

[mattmoor]

I'm sure there are some docs changes needed for this, although I'm not sure where those docs are, so if folks could provide pointers to any docs they think should be updated to reflect this change I'd appreciate it 🙏

/kind feature

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/resources/apply.go	99.2%	99.2%	0.0

[mattmoor]

I'm going to try and expand this with e2e test coverage as well, so not checking the test box yet.

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/resources/apply.go	99.2%	99.2%	0.0

[mattmoor]

Only failure seems to be outside of what I've modified, so let's see if it repro's.

/retest

[mattmoor]

I think docs/tasks.md may be the place to update for the docs ✅ , looking at that now.

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/resources/apply.go	99.2%	99.2%	0.0

[mattmoor]

Ok, I updated docs/tasks.md and also found docs/variables.md and added a couple rows to the pertinent tables with the new syntax. The prior commit also tweaked a few of the e2e tests to exercise the subscript syntax, so I've checked off "docs" and "e2e". I'm ofc happy to expand both of these if folks have specific pointers to things I missed.

For the commit message, I've left this unchecked as I am somewhat reluctant to fork the TEP PR as the source of truth (esp. before it is merged), but if folks have a good example, I'd be happy to circle back and update things to follow a strong precedent.

[mattmoor]

/unhold

The TEP has merged

[vdemeester]

/hold cancel
Maybe ? 😛

[mattmoor]

/unhold works for Knative prow, so either we have some snowflake or y'all are on a really old version 😅

Either way, thanks!

[vdemeester]

/unhold works for Knative prow, so either we have some snowflake or y'all are on a really old version

Either way, thanks!

Really old version it is 😉 😛 😅

[dlorenc]

/lgtm

nice!

[vdemeester]

/hold
/cc @afrittoli @bobcatfish

[vdemeester]

Did I wrote that FIXME ? I think I meant "with deprecating v1alpha1", maybe ? 🤔 👴🏼

[mattmoor]

Yeah, I just moved it 😁

[vdemeester]

yeah.. I saw that 😝 I am confused by my own comment 😹 damn…

[tekton-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vdemeester

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [vdemeester]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[vdemeester]

(holding just a day or two or less to allow core team to review 👼🏼 )

[dlorenc]

Are we still waiting on anything here?

[vdemeester]

@dlorenc let's validate this in the upcoming API WG (today) 👼🏼

[mattmoor]

@vdemeester Just seeing this, but don't think it was discussed... 😅

[vdemeester]

@vdemeester Just seeing this, but don't think it was discussed...

That's a good point 😅
@tektoncd/core-maintainers last call for review, I'll check tomorrow morning before the release 😝

[mattmoor]

Just popped open my pending PR list and saw this (I'd forgotten about it 🤣 ), should we /hold cancel it?

[vdemeester]

/hold cancel
Indeed 😛

[bobcatfish]

Late to the party but I'm excited to see this going in! Next release is gonna be a good one :D

[bobcatfish]

That being said, one more process nit: technically the TEP should be "implementable" before the implementation gets merged (another opportunity for some automation to enforce?) - I added a comment to the TEP pr also https://github.com/tektoncd/community/pull/503/files#r709442151

[mattmoor]

I'm curious if there are examples of TEPs that have been merged as "proposed" and never been made "implementable"? I'm sort of curious why this extra hop is in there, and whether it's been useful historically?

Happy to discuss elsewhere as this is sort of an odd place to have that discussion 🤣

[bobcatfish]

@mattmoor wouldn't be surprised - the process is documented at https://github.com/tektoncd/community/blob/main/teps/0001-tekton-enhancement-proposal-process.md#tep-workflow - looking at some of the history there might help; a great place to discuss changes would be the API working group and/or an issue/pr over there

[skaegi]

I know this PR is merged already, but I think it would make a lot of sense to support single quotes in addition to double quotes. This both matches how Kubernetes references info with the downwards api and also how bracket notation is typically used.

In terms of implementation I think this is just a matter of adding "params['%s']", to the patterns arrays as well as tests. I can create a PR when I get a moment.