btf: unexport decoder.TypesByName#2055
Draft
ti-mo wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
It looks like this had been exported by mistake in v0.19.0 and nobody noticed. The same happened to decoder.TypeByID and decoder.TypeID, but those were shadowed by their Spec equivalents. Signed-off-by: Timo Beckers <timo@isovalent.com>
dylandreimerink
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2026
dylandreimerink
left a comment
dylandreimerink
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't imagine unexporting is going to be an issue, I don't expect anyone to use these since the decoder itself is also unexported.
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
It looks like this had been exported by mistake in v0.19.0 and nobody noticed. The same happened to decoder.TypeByID and decoder.TypeID, but those were shadowed by their Spec equivalents.
@dylandreimerink WDYT? This is still inconsistent, not sure about committing to making it a named field instead.