feat: reserve canary and blue-green deploy fields on rollout - #231
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Joshua Temple <joshua.temple@stablekernel.com>
joshua-temple
force-pushed
the
feat/reserve-canary-bluegreen
branch
from
June 21, 2026 03:05
21dbf60 to
27793e4
Compare
joshua-temple
enabled auto-merge (squash)
June 21, 2026 03:10
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem
Issue #1 asked to reserve canary and blue-green deploy controls in the manifest. An earlier draft added a separate
strategy:block with siblingcanary:/blue_green:sub-blocks on each deploy. That collided with the repo's already-canonical reservation:RolloutConfig(rollout:) atinternal/config/schema_v1.goalready modelstype: rolling|canary|blue_greenwith reservedcanaryandblue_greensub-blocks, and the schema comment states there is no sharedstrategy:block. Two surfaces for the same concept would have been redundant and contradicted that comment.Fix
Converge onto the canonical
rolloutsurface. The useful fields from #1 are reserved by enriching the existingrollout.canaryblock, additively andomitempty:percent(int, 1..100) single initial canary weightbake_time(Go duration string) soak before promotionpromote_callback/rollback_callbacklocal callback workflow pathsrollout.blue_greenkeeps its existingswitchfield as the cutover workflow path (issue #1'scutover_callbackis the same concept; no duplicate field is added). Nostrategy:surface is introduced.These are reserved shape only: the generator does not read them, so generated workflow bytes are identical whether the fields are present or absent. Because the change is additive,
schema_versionis unchanged.Verification
go build ./...,go test ./...(1475 pass),golangci-lint run ./...(no issues) all green.e2e/scenarios/23-canary-bluegreen-reserved.yamlexercises a canary and a blue-green rollout and proves regeneration produces no drift (verifyexit 0).bake_timeduration parsing, and callback-path safety via the existing helper. A generator test asserts byte-identical output with vs without the new fields populated. The three JSON schema copies are regenerated in sync.versioning.mddocuments the enriched rollout reserved shape and reaffirms there is nostrategy:block.Closes #1