Andrew Bayer
Andrew Bayer
No worries! =) I'm not in love with any option at this point, though I do prefer `paramsMap` to either `params` or `resource`, hence me updating the PR.
Another option could be `resolverParams` - which stutters a bit being under the `resolver` field. Again, I'm open to literally any suggestion.
So after discussion with @lbernick and her discovery of https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/pull/4502#discussion_r803199842, I've come to the conclusion that we should stick with the subobject syntax, with the field renamed to `params`. As...
/hold cancel
> On "additionnal" point here, the resulting `ResolutionRequest` type will have a different `params` syntax as the one specified in `resolver`. Do we want to change this as well ?...
> I agree with that 💯 % 😝. But _if_ we didn't name it `params`, but something else, maybe `spec` 😈. Then we would have something completely "new" and "unique",...
In general, I'd argue that we should only have one syntax in Pipeline for arbitrarily-named key/value pairs, and since we already have one (`params` and `results` etc using `- name:...
Should this be folded into #4983?