⚠️ 🐛 (API) convert CLI methods to use pointer receivers

[kersten]

Updated all CLI method receivers to use pointer semantics (*CLI) instead of value (CLI), ensuring consistent behavior across command setup functions and reducing potential for unintentional value copying.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @kersten. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[camilamacedo86]

/ok-to-test

[camilamacedo86]

/lgtm
/approved
/ok-to-test

[camilamacedo86]

Hi @kersten

I think I would be possible to have a function as before without the receiver deprecated so that we do not break the API? And in the comment we suggested use instead (c *CLI) Command()

/hold

Lets see if we can move with this change without break the API

[kersten]

WDYT about this approach?

// Command returns the underlying root command.
//
// Deprecated: Use (c *CLI).CommandPtr() instead.
func (c CLI) Command() *cobra.Command {
	return (&c).CommandPtr()
}

// CommandPtr returns the underlying root command.
func (c *CLI) CommandPtr() *cobra.Command {
	return c.cmd
}

This keeps the existing Command() method for compatibility and introduces the pointer-based version under a new name. In a future major release, we could switch Command() to use the pointer receiver and deprecate CommandPtr() to clean things up.

Let me know what you think!

[camilamacedo86]

The issue with this one is that it would break the API.

Deprecating it isn’t a great option either, since we’d be left with an awkward name (CommandPtr) that we’d have to support indefinitely. It feels like an odd choice, so I’m considering how much value this actually brings compared to the potential costs and impact—especially for end users who rely on Kubebuilder as a library.

I’ll need some time to properly review and evaluate this case before deciding how to proceed.

[k8s-ci-robot]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[k8s-ci-robot]

PR needs rebase.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[camilamacedo86]

Hi @kersten,

Thanks again for the contribution and for exploring alternatives! 🎉

After further review, we've decided to defer this change to v5, where breaking changes can be handled more cleanly. While the workaround avoids immediate breakage, it introduces naming and maintenance concerns that we’d prefer to address in a major release. See: #4762

I hope that you do not mind:

Closing this for now as deferred — really appreciate your efforts and understanding!

Best,

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: kersten
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from camilamacedo86. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment