Skip to content

ci: add cimgr/cihostlet API types, copied from corp - #2

Closed
bradfitz wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
bradfitz/ci-types
Closed

bradfitz wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
bradfitz/ci-types

Conversation

@bradfitz

@bradfitz bradfitz commented Sep 29, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

These are the types cimgr, cihostlet and ciguestlet use to talk to each
other: VM creation options and status (guestlet, statustype), host info
and the hostinfo websocket messages (worktype, hostlet), boot logs
(bootlog), identifiers and labels (ciid, labels, guestlettype, cinet),
the cimgr VM API response (cimgr/cimgrapi), and VM image resolution
(vmimage).

They're a closed, stdlib-only import graph, so they move here as is,
with only import paths rewritten and license headers added. Corp will
import them from here.

Updates tailscale/corp#49137

Co-authored-by: Tom Proctor
Co-authored-by: Irbe Krumina
Co-authored-by: Sam Wronski
Co-authored-by: Joe Tsai

These are the types cimgr, cihostlet and ciguestlet use to talk to each
other: VM creation options and status (guestlet, statustype), host info
and the hostinfo websocket messages (worktype, hostlet), boot logs
(bootlog), identifiers and labels (ciid, labels, guestlettype, cinet),
the cimgr VM API response (cimgr/cimgrapi), and VM image resolution
(vmimage).

They're a closed, stdlib-only import graph, so they move here as is,
with only import paths rewritten and license headers added. Corp will
import them from here.

Updates tailscale/corp#49137

Co-authored-by: Tom Proctor <tomhjp@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Irbe Krumina <irbe@tailscale.com>
Co-authored-by: Sam Wronski <samw@tailscale.com>
Co-authored-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Signed-off-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@tailscale.com>
Change-Id: Ib06d152dff1e861bfc86a921fa1001271fcbd387

@tomhjp tomhjp left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Personally I would slightly prefer to preserve git history but I'm not strongly opinionated either way. LGTM as long as we follow up with the other major CI components fairly quickly, or it will get painful splitting PRs across 2 repos.

@bradfitz

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I'd also prefer to keep the git history. Will do.

@bradfitz

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Actually, closing for now. We'll do a bigger move all at once later.

@bradfitz bradfitz closed this Sep 30, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants