Skip to content

chore: added proposal to drop link validation#459

Open
klocke-io wants to merge 1 commit into
gardener:masterfrom
klocke-io:chore/remove-link-validation
Open

chore: added proposal to drop link validation#459
klocke-io wants to merge 1 commit into
gardener:masterfrom
klocke-io:chore/remove-link-validation

Conversation

@klocke-io
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@klocke-io klocke-io commented May 20, 2026

What this PR does / why we need it:
Adds openspec proposal to drop link validation
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:
Best to read in the following order:

  • openspec/changes/remove-link-validation/proposal.md
  • openspec/changes/remove-link-validation/design.md
  • openspec/changes/remove-link-validation/tasks.md

Release note:

NONE

@gardener-prow gardener-prow Bot added do-not-merge/needs-kind Indicates a PR lacks a `kind/foo` label and requires one. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the cla-assistant.io CLA. labels May 20, 2026
@VelmiraS
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Thanks for the thorough write-up — the proposal, design, and tasks are all clear and well-structured. The SSRF angle is a good motivation for full removal rather than hardening.

A few thoughts:

On the breaking CLI flags:
The rationale makes sense given the feature is disabled everywhere.

On verification:
The approach is clear — run docforge before and after the change, hash the output, compare. If the hashes match, nothing broke.

One thing to watch out for: if any output file contains a timestamp like generated: 2026-05-21 15:30:00, the hashes will differ even if the actual content is identical — just because the time of the two runs is different. Worth checking for that before comparing.

Minor: openspec/config.yaml looks like a scaffolding/tooling
file — is it intentional to commit it to the repo, or is it gitignore-worthy?

@gardener-prow
Copy link
Copy Markdown

gardener-prow Bot commented May 21, 2026

@VelmiraS: adding LGTM is restricted to approvers and reviewers in OWNERS files.

Details

In response to this:

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@gardener-prow
Copy link
Copy Markdown

gardener-prow Bot commented May 21, 2026

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: VelmiraS
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign dimitar-kostadinov for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the cla-assistant.io CLA. do-not-merge/needs-kind Indicates a PR lacks a `kind/foo` label and requires one. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants