Kubernetes API Expression Working Group, 2 Mar 2021

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: WG API Expression Bi-Weekly Meeting for 20210302

Description

WG API Expression Bi-Weekly Meeting for 20210302

A

All right welcome to workgroup api expression, it's the 2nd of march 2021 and uh yeah aside from getting ready for coop freeze. We don't have much on the agenda, so let me pull up our ga doc.

A

A

A

Seems to still need review.

B

We don't have do we, no, we don't have any of the people working on that. um I have reviewed many of these, so I think we're looking for the approval at this time or something I need to clarify.

B

But um that's a piece of work, but I think everything's mostly done except a specific function. That joe showed me and kevin yesterday kevin delgado yesterday, and so um we might be able to do.

A

That I only when we were asked if the feature is in danger, um I remember you linked the implementation for the one controller.

B

Yeah so because each pull each of these pull requests depend on another. So if you look at 99.12 is inside 99 214, which is itself inside fall 62. So basically, if we merge 99.62 we're good for that feature,.

A

Okay, that's that's great.

B

Okay and yeah, I think uh the extracting thing uh might be useful, but we, I don't know we might be able to release uh even without it but yeah. I'm.

C

B

A

I saw which one was it.

A

Oh yeah yeah to rebase this pr. I think I saw that yesterday rip it rip basil, basil's corner, so I had to replace as.

B

Well, what are you looking at right now.

A

uh I was I was uh checking. I I saw um just pr about the um controller yeah I I I can only share tabs, which is a bit annoying, but uh yeah and okay um yeah. Then uh some resources, andrea how's, it going.

D

So yeah I got uh some feedback from antoine and jordan, so yeah I'm working on that. Right now I was trying to set up a cluster with some nodes, some api server with the new version, some api server, with the old version trying to do some manual tests, and that's where I am.

D

B

Awesome andrea, do you want to meet again? Maybe we should maybe we could even build program if you want or something like this.

D

Yeah, that would be great. I think it would speed up things uh quite a lot so yeah. Whenever you have time, we can set up something.

B

Yeah as much as you need.

D

B

Let's talk about that, so we can schedule something.

D

Okay, okay sounds good thanks.

A

Cool um mutating education controls, pregnancy fields, yeah. um I wait, that's a that's an issue. um Do you think I should just revert the change to make reviews easier or wait for jordan to be mad about the change.

B

What, specifically, are you talking.

A

About the api version check in the validation.

B

I'm I'm like very, very confident that jordan is gonna.

A

Ask you to revert that yeah because, like it just checks that it's there and if it's not there, conversion will fail. As far as I understand it, it can't it can't be not there on an existing object, but.

B

Then what happens when the conversion fails.

A

uh The request.

B

Fails does it? No, I think if the conversion fails, we drop the decoding phase and then we just revert to an empty thing. Basically,.

A

Now, because the conversion happens in update, update calls conversion for every entry and converts the managed fields, entry or converts the object to the managed fields, entry and this conversion will fail. We had this error when, uh with the csvs.

B

Where the vibration was empty, we've done that with andrea, so I'll suggest the same thing write a test where you send something and then remove the api version and test the behavior, and if it fails every single.

B

Because I suspect, uh once we don't have once we have this in the validation, it's possible, that we won't even be able to read the objects from ncd.

B

Oh, I don't know if it's the read modifier right that is going to fail. So, let's, let's uh make the test and then call.

A

It yeah yeah, I I I was really sure I'll test it. I was really sure on that, because we had the era where, um if the api version was not there and it failed completely so but I'll test, it.

B

That sounds good yeah. If it does fail completely, then the validation would be better.

A

Yeah, um I think I saw the comments. The rest look good so far. I don't know.

B

Yeah yeah it does, I mean a few needs about um domain on it. I think one of them is not probably even valid um yeah. I mean that looked good. Okay,.

A

Cool then uh status wiping did we did we finally disagree that it is gnga requirement because we weren't certain on it.

D

B

I yes, I think so I mean based on my discussion with strata. I don't think he's going to be happy if it's not fixed by them.

A

B

A

B

Partially, as in what we, what you have done with the status, wiping would be with the field set and stuff would be good enough for rga.

A

Yeah, I think, wrote as one who wrote a lot of those field sets. I would feel more confident going to jay without it than with it, because it's hard to test. So I don't know but yeah.

B

I mean it's not going to be perfect, but at least most of the status are not going to be completely wrong, and so I think it's uh it's it's better. This way and kevin. Do you want to talk about that.

C

Yeah um I mean I've mainly been working on fixing the the status test in the apply test and there were some issues with with some some random resources that I think like were new, that that I fixed, but um I'm blocked now on trying to find a way to test crds, and I saw the the comment that that you had put like a few months ago, kevin and antoine were discussing yesterday and um still still trying to figure out the right way to test crds because it doesn't look like we can use like another field in the status um and I'm I'm you know, I'm not sure you know what other ways there are to test the uh the status wiping for crds.

C

But if you guys have any any thoughts or any ideas, then you know I'm happy to spend some time and try to try to test them out.

A

um Yeah, I spent quite some time with it. The only thing I I don't remember exactly, but maybe like the controller, will touch it again, but we might be able to just like check that it eventually belongs to us field, but I'm I don't I'm sure, like.

B

A

B

Like because, clearly, when you create the resource, it's going to be updated instantly uh the status, and so what, if you apply the status again like what? If you only process the thing one more time.

C

Yeah, so you you do a patch, it fails, and then you do it again later or something or you do it in some sort of like.

B

C

B

Automatically after you create the object, the controller is going to add stuff to the cond the status, and so what I'm saying is that possibly you could create the control does its thing and then you do another change or you reapply again, so that you reacquire the field and then hopefully the controller is not going to change it again, and so you can, this time test the right, behavior and uh yeah. We were looking with kevin right now, and so the conditions are not uh marked as a lease type map.

B

I was expecting. uh If you look at the pod conditions, they are definitely merged. Based on, I can't remember what the name of the key the type key.

B

And uh we don't do that for series. I suspect, that's a bug.

A

Okay, yeah, I I thought conditions were a map, but I was never sure if the key is really typed. I never checked.

B

Yeah so for crds, it's probably a bug, but uh we can't have. We can't own a specific condition. The goal of this test was obviously that uh you apply my status, so no one else is going to apply this random type and so you're always going to earn it, but because this uh this list is atomic thoughts. Obviously it doesn't work.

A

C

Something that we can fix now, the bug in and it not being atomic.

A

B

Ideally yeah uh I if we cannot depend on that fixture run these so that'd, be nice.

A

Isn't isn't the status I thought status is still something the crd also defines, and the conditions is just something defined on this specific c r.

B

A

But we'll talk.

B

About the the conditions for the crd, not for the crs- oh so yeah, okay,.

A

Yeah that one sorry yeah.

B

No, no! No, um so I think that's wrong something you could do uh kevin, though yeah I mean, maybe try and see if it fixes the test and then push it. That way. Maybe that's uh that's a reasonable uh way. Out of this.

B

Okay, joe, has worked on uh making sure that we can change this specifically, I wouldn't use the patchment key uh patch merge type. I would just use the list map type and release type okay. We can talk about this after, but uh this is something that has made sure we can update and it's not gonna break anything.

C

Cool yeah: let's: let's chat about it and see if that, if that works. um Otherwise I can try what you were suggesting about um re re-applying or re re-getting ownership of it. But that sounds good yeah.

B

um The other kevin we jeff and joe added a bunch of things in the document which I labeled as administration,.

B

There you go yeah.

B

I've put it here because I don't think we have to do that before goodreads. For most of these things.

A

Yeah, that's the one. I was asking a chat like what what pr do we need to send to actually go ga if we make it and like like right now we're waiting on some api client stuff, my admission stuff and and the sub resource things uh for every one.

C

A

C

A

Swiping yeah for every one of those, if we don't make it to the deadline, how confident are we that we could make it quick enough, so we can ask for an exception, or should we or.

B

I I don't know yet I feel, like everything is close to being merged close enough to being merged, that uh we should be good to go. But I I'm I'm curious. If we're gonna have some more eyeballs as we reach the code price and.

C

B

People are gonna, have the stronger opinions, um especially possibly about the api client.

B

So I'm not. I can't say right now and also it it's going to depend on how many pr's I have merged. If it's one, then we are possibly good. If it's more than one. I don't think that, except.

A

Yeah all right, so that's about what.

B

A

Do now do conformance tests fall under the code freeze or are they I think knows about that.

A

Jeff is here, muted,.

B

Okay, I think jeff would say that uh we have a little bit of extra time after countries.

A

All right yeah, then, what what do we need to do, except of getting our stuff ready?

A

Thank you. Jeff.

C

What's the best example.

A

Yeah, so what what do we have anything else? We need to discuss solve now, or is it only out open tasks?

A

No, I think it's okay.

B

We need to get that done.

A

All right should we should we cut here and and give everybody the time to work.

A

All right, that's good, then everybody good luck and if you need anything, I can slick.

C

C