Review/Edit the data loss fields

[juliev0]

Summary

For Pipeline and InterstepBufferService, we have tried to configure the list of fields that are at risk for data loss (in usde_config.yaml).

For some fields, we concern ourselves with just the field itself changing: example spec.vertices.source.generator gets set when it was previously unset. We care about that, but we don't care if some subfield of it gets modified. For these fields, we set includeSubFields=false.

For other fields, we concern ourselves if either the field changed or if any of its subfields changed: example spec.vertices.source.transformer.container.env. For these fields, wet set includeSubFields=true.

We need a review of these fields .

Note that in the future, we will have a second list of fields which distinguishes the fields which require "Progressive" and not "PPND".

---

Message from the maintainers:

If you wish to see this enhancement implemented please add a 👍 reaction to this issue! We often sort issues this way to know what to prioritize.

[juliev0]

cc @vigith @afugazzotto

[whynowy]

All the fields look good to me. Just some thoughts - most of the time, users might only update the image tag, and I assume it is mostly not breaking, is there a way to simplify the process to only do in-place update in that case?

[juliev0]

All the fields look good to me. Just some thoughts - most of the time, users might only update the image tag, and I assume it is mostly not breaking, is there a way to simplify the process to only do in-place update in that case?

The thing is that "mostly not breaking" isn't sufficient. We need to act conservatively.