Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.83234% with 27 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 62.74%. Comparing base (889af4b) to head (219b67a).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1166      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   63.27%   62.74%   -0.53%     
==========================================
  Files          15       15              
  Lines        2358     2365       +7     
==========================================
- Hits         1492     1484       -8     
- Misses        771      782      +11     
- Partials       95       99       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Thanks for the contribution, @grahamalama. PRs #1055 and #1062, based on #1039, were merged and included in v0.16.0.

@chengfang ahh I see. So it seems the final version of the formatting changes you mentioned do not use goccy/go-yaml? One consequence of this is that blank lines are not preserved. I've also noticed that image updater (whether through the yaml library or our logic) enforces this opinionated formatting of array items:

array:
- item

vs something like:

array:
  - item

goccy/go-yaml seems to handle both of these things, so I see some benefit of adopting that library as it would lead to overall less noisy diffs when applying updates.

What should I do with this PR? I'm sure it's not desirable to have 2 different yaml libraries in use simultaneously in the project, but if using goccy/go-yaml is something you want to consider further, I can continue working on this PR so that we switch everything over to goccy/go-yaml (or maybe create a separate follow-on PR to handle that). What do you think?