►
From YouTube: WG API Expression Bi-Weekly Meeting for 20210330
Description
WG API Expression Bi-Weekly Meeting for 20210330
A
C
B
A
D
B
A
B
C
A
A
B
A
B
You
still
need
to
have
a
auto-scaling
scale
object,
so
it
doesn't
even
give
you
the
right
type
of
objects
and
if
you're
a
cld
and
the
replicas
path
is
in
a
different
location,
you
still
need
to
transform
this
cld
type
spec,
something
like
because
into
a
scaling
object
with
spec
replicas.
So
I
mean
you
do
need
to
do
a
transformation.
D
A
E
A
A
B
B
D
Yeah,
so
this
was
the
issue
where,
if
you
are
trying
to
extract,
say
your
manager
just
owns
like
a
list
like
or
like
a
like
a
map
such
as
empty
just
the
metadata
map,
but
nothing
in
that
map,
then
currently,
if
somebody
else
comes
in
and
adds
to
that
map,
the
way
that
extract
currently
works
is
because
it
thinks
the
map,
the
the
metadata,
is
everything
under
that
map.
It'll
extract
everything,
but
we
only
want
to
be
able
to
extract
just
that
top
level.
D
But
schema
reconciliation
doesn't
think
that
it's
that
that
it
was
at
once
that
it
was
one
at
one
time
atomic,
because
it
doesn't
own
anything
within
that
map.
I
yeah
that
wasn't
that
was
kind
of
poorly
explained,
but
that's
kind
of
what
we're
working
with
now
and
I
don't
know.
Let
me
know
what
questions
you
have
around.
B
A
A
A
B
Guess
we'll
definitely
talk
to
joe
tomorrow
when
he's
back
about
this
because
he
wrote
the
reconciler,
so
he
thought
about
that.
He
maybe
even
have
he
maybe
has
a
document
to
describe
her
his
algorithm
and
the
the
line
of
that.
So
we
could
probably
look
back
at
it
and
yeah.
I
think
we
just
need
to
be
smarter.
Somehow.
A
D
Yeah
we'll
talk
to
joe
tomorrow
and
I
think
we're
currently
or
at
least
I'm
currently
exploring
the
idea
around
maintaining
some
sort
of
like
checking
if,
if
anyone
has
ever
like,
if
any,
if
other
managers
have
have
modified
it
in
a
granular
way,
so
that
the
the
manager
that
only
owns
the
the
top
level
will
know,
oh
somebody
else
is
is
has
used
it
in
a
granular
form.
Therefore
it
must
be
granular
and
it
can't
be
atomic.
B
Reconcile
with
schema
is
the
thing
that
looks
at
the
manage
field
to
know
if
we
went
from
atomic
to
granular
or
the
other
way
around
for
a
crd
or
default
fold
types.
Actually,
whenever
we
start
the
apply
or
update
path,
we
first
update
the
manage
fields
based
on
this
decision,
so
we
look
at
all
the
managed
fields
and
we're
like
is
this
was
does
this
look
like
it
was
atomic
before
and
it's
not
anymore
and
we
fixed
the
managed
fields
before
we
do
the
apply
path
or
the
update
path.
B
Left
just
before,
and
he
can't
make
it
to
this
meeting,
but
he's
he's
thoughtfully.
Looking
at
all
the
types
dot
go
that
we
have
and
trying
to
see.
If
we
need
to
change
any
of
the
atomicity
or
not
of
some
of
the
fields,
specifically
maps
and
lists,
I
must
be
maps
to
be
honest,
because
a
lot
of
maps
are
not
atomic
by
default,
but
the
party
should
yeah.
B
Okay,
yeah
the
selectors,
and
so
we
decided
that
pretty
much
anything
that
is
a
coordinate
is
probably
atomic
right.
It
doesn't
ever
make
sense
to
say
I
own
x
and
you
and
y,
and
that's
how
we're
going
to
aim
at
something,
and
so
anything
that
looks
like
a
coordinate
or
like
a
color
is
probably
something
that
is
the
atomic
and
so
a
good
way
to
detect.
That
is
that
any
structure
that
has
only
scatter
fields
and
probably
not
many
of
them,
is
maybe
atomic.
A
D
B
Are
coordinates
right?
They
allow
you
to
select
something
specific,
it's
kind
of
hard.
If
someone
says
I
want
to
select
these
and
someone
else
says,
I
want
to
select
that,
and
they
eventually
end
up
selecting
nothing
because
because
they
don't
make
sense
together
yeah,
so
I
think
it's
better
if
the
atomic.
A
E
B
B
C
B
A
A
A
I
haven't
made
myself
yeah.
I
looked
at
the
documentation
story
when
I
finished
my
my
current
task
before
before
code
freeze
and
that
I
had
a
like.
I
was
very
certain
of
what
I
wanted
to
do,
but
then
I
looked
at
our
documentation
and
I
didn't
have
so
much
of
a
clue
what
to
write
down
because
it
always
comes
up
when
somebody
asks
about
something
it's
hard
to
like
ad-hoc
makeup
stuff,
to
write
down.
A
B
A
B
A
B
Yeah
also,
I
think,
if
we
want
to
release
more
often
than
kubernetes
and
that's
becoming
kind
of
obvious,
we
need
to
be
careful
about
not
developing
bottom
up,
like
from
the
car
to
the
user,
but
side
to
side.
I
mean
we
have
some
of
the
call
and
we
have
some
of
the
the
whole
story
exists
from
the
beginning,
and
so
ducks
up
should
be
included
in
the
in
the
deadline.
A
A
B
A
I
think
yeah
I
I
I
like
especially
the
the
whole
list-
type
list
map
keys,
documentation,
part
that
maria
took
on
a
while
ago.
I
have
no
overview
about
what
we
miss
and
what
we
need,
and
I
I
don't
even
know
much
about
the
list-
type
feature.
What
should
be
documented,
so
I
was
kind
of
stranded
and
I
don't
know
what
to
do
with
this.
A
A
C
Yeah,
if
you
can,
if
you
have
a
meeting,
just
add
me
to
that
meeting
too.
I
know
some
people
from
documentation
from
the
other
project
that
we
work
on.
So
I
also
can
ping
the
same
people
from
documentation
to
see
when
can
meet
them,
but
I
don't
know
if
they
have
anything
like.
I
don't
see
any
like
and
from
the
other
projects
and
like
there
is
nothing
that
is
like
a
rule
for
them,
but
we
always
they
are
open
to
meet
us
and
give
us
their
like
feedback.
I
think.
C
F
F
B
B
So
multiple
things,
so
we
don't
have
a
good
mechanism
to
say
this
field
needs
to
be
deleted.
That's
not
a
thing
and
joe
has
tried
to
work
on
what
we
call
tombstoning,
which
was
a
mechanism
to
say
I
want
this
field
to
be
removed,
and
so
we
don't
have
a
very
good
mechanism
for
that.
What
happens,
though,
is
that
if
no
one
owns
a
field,
it's
going
to
typically
get
deleted,
especially
if
it
was
applied
before
so.
B
If
you
apply
a
field
and
then
you
apply
without
the
field
it's
going
to
be
deleted.
If
no
one
else
owns
it,
it's
not
true
about
update
because
update.
If
you
want
to
do
an
update
that
is
update,
put
badge
you
can
just
remove
the
field,
but
so
I'm
assuming
you're
talking
about
deleting
with
apply
and
yes
deleting
with
apply
means.
B
F
I
guess
another
question
around
this
event
for
the
controller,
so
what
is
going
to
work
on,
basically
is
the
the
configuration
without
the
field
right.
So
I
think
key.
This
is
going
into
a
situation
that
we
need
to
know
that
this
field
is
present
before
and
now
it's
gone,
so
we
can
do
the
correct
thing
if
we
just
have
the
information.
Okay,
this
is
the
configuration
without
this
field.
We
don't
know
it's
present
before
so.
Have
you
considered
the
use
case.
B
F
Okay,
then
I
guess
that's
the
part
confused
me,
so
yeah
everything
makes
sense
for
the
at
this
point
and
then
the
controller
needs
to
kick
in
and
do
this
things
against
the
configuration
right.
So
previously,
there
is
some
value
for
that
field.
We,
the
controller,
did
something
with
it.
Now
this
field
is
gone.
The
controller
has
no
information
about
this
field
anymore.
So
what
should
the
controller
do?
How
can
I
ensure
this
field?
F
B
F
B
B
How
did
you
get
the
conflict
to
be
what
it
is
on
the
api
server,
and
so
I
suspect,
typically,
you
should
have
the
status,
have
the
information
about
what
you
currently
have
in
the
system
and
expect
what
you
want
to
be
the
system
to
be,
and
so,
if
you
notice
the
difference
between
what
people
want
and
what
you
have
then
you're
supposed
to
actuate.
Somehow.
D
B
What
you
have
is
that
if
you
have
a
field
that
said
before,
I
want
this
to
happen
and
the
status
says
this
has
happened
and
now
it's
removed.
You
should
see
that
oh,
it
happened
and
we
want
to
delete
it
so
because
it's
going
to
be
present
in
the
status
and
not
in
the
spec
anymore.
So
you
need
to
remove
it.
A
D
F
F
B
They
probably
should
not,
but
it
sounds
like
you're
trying
to
make
something
you're
trying
to,
and
that
makes
sense,
because
that's
the
role
of
the
controller
but
you're
trying
to
get
something
from
the
status
of
the
or
from
the
the
current
state
of
the
configuration
right,
you're
telling
me.
How
do
I
detect
a
change
in
the
configuration
and
that's
one
of
kuboni's
principle
right
is
that
you
should
not
care
about
the
change
in
the
configuration?
A
F
Yeah,
that's
basically
the
approach
we
we
took
that
we
use
the
web
group
to
catch
the
transaction
and
store
the
information
into
the
metadata
seeing
okay.
These
fields
have
been
present
before
and
now
we
want
to
get
it
removed.
So
we
have
some
special
logic
to
handle
this.
I
just
want
to
check
with
gallery:
isn't
it
a
good
way
to
do
it?
I
think.
B
F
F
A
No,
I
I
yeah.
I
just
want
to
say
that
it
sounds
like
one
of
those
cases
where
we
had
the
api
principles
discussion,
that
we
want
to
put
our
best
practice,
because
it
could
be
one
of
those
cases
that
it's
not
really
intended
to
be
done
like
that,
or
it
feels
a
bit
like
what,
until
I
mentioned
so
yeah.
Okay,.