Istio API Feature Status using proto annotations #2013

zhlsunshine · 2021-06-01T07:00:29Z

According to proposal design doc, FieldOptions of proto3 can be used to implement this feature label, and I just change the code for Export To feature as PoC work.

Thank you for your time for reviewing this PR! ^_^

istio-policy-bot · 2021-06-01T07:00:31Z

😊 Welcome @zhlsunshine! This is either your first contribution to the Istio api repo, or it's been
awhile since you've been here.

You can learn more about the Istio working groups, code of conduct, and contributing guidelines
by referring to Contributing to Istio.

Thanks for contributing!

Courtesy of your friendly welcome wagon.

zhlsunshine · 2021-06-01T07:02:12Z

/test release-notes_api

therealmitchconnors · 2021-06-02T01:49:26Z

Adding @jasonwzm who authored this design.

jasonwzm · 2021-06-02T23:42:18Z

@zhlsunshine Thanks for working on this! The feature name should be from the features defined in Istio repos. Do you plan to help implement the proto feature status? If so, we should definitely sync before more work is done this. :) Your contribution is much appreciated!

zhlsunshine · 2021-06-03T02:48:27Z

@jasonwzm yes, it will be great if I can help on the proto feature status. And I also hope to sync with u @jasonwzm @therealmitchconnors for the next step. ^_^

zhlsunshine · 2021-07-02T06:32:15Z

/test build_api

google-cla · 2021-08-26T09:54:42Z

CLAs look good, thanks!

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

linsun · 2021-08-28T01:02:29Z

networking/v1alpha3/destination_rule.proto

@@ -238,7 +239,7 @@ message DestinationRule {
  // The value "." is reserved and defines an export to the same namespace that
  // the destination rule is declared in. Similarly, the value "*" is reserved and
  // defines an export to all namespaces.
-  repeated string export_to = 4;
+  repeated string export_to = 4 [(istio.extensions.feature) = {status: "alpha", name: "dr-export-to", id: "traffic.control"}]; 


what is a bit confusing is that you highlight this export_to feature status as alpha and API is also alpha. Do you mean this feature is alpha while the rest of DR is beta?

What is the criteria for adding the istio feature status out of so many fields in DR or any other resource?

Q: what is a bit confusing is that you highlight this export_to feature status as alpha and API is also alpha. Do you mean this feature is alpha while the rest of DR is beta?
A: In fact, user may pay more attention on the status of these new imported features which may be alpha or beta or experimental, and user also want to know more details about the status and progress for these features, so it should not be key point for the rest which is not highlighted. And @jasonwzm please correct me if I am wrong.

Q: What is the criteria for adding the istio feature status out of so many fields in DR or any other resource?
A: Thanks for this question. In spite of more details for field based on feature status, I think this doc of the criteria still can be a great reference.

common-protos/istio.io/extensions/field_feature.proto

linsun · 2021-08-28T01:05:48Z

common-protos/istio.io/extensions/field_feature.proto

+	// there would be experimental in future.
+	optional string status = 1;
+	// show the feature field for specified resource, such as vs-export-to shows the virtualservice's field export_to,
+	// it can be defined by feature owner.


any approval process needed? or just the normal PR approval?

also, how a feature owner know which ones they should add this status field? (asked below in the example below)

Q: any approval process needed? or just the normal PR approval?
A: I think normal PR approval is enough, because API repo change is a significant thing. Any other idea?

Q: how a feature owner know which ones they should add this status field? (asked below in the example below)
A: I think doc should be a great referenced criteria for feature owner. Beside that, I think proposal doc or PR review would be a right place to discuss the status field.

google-cla · 2021-08-30T05:52:13Z

CLAs look good, thanks!

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

google-cla · 2021-08-30T05:57:38Z

CLAs look good, thanks!

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

howardjohn · 2021-08-30T15:17:32Z

Can we build the tooling that makes these fields useful before merging it into the API? my concern is we will end up like the test frameworks features thing - it adds a significant burden to developers, but has yet to be useful. Before we go add another hurdle to merging a PR, we need to make sure its actually giving us a benefit today

zhlsunshine · 2021-08-31T02:38:20Z

Can we build the tooling that makes these fields useful before merging it into the API? my concern is we will end up like the test frameworks features thing - it adds a significant burden to developers, but has yet to be useful. Before we go add another hurdle to merging a PR, we need to make sure its actually giving us a benefit today

Hi @howardjohn, I understand your worry about it. However, this PR is the first phase to this API feature status, and I will build a tool to make these fields useful based on the design doc once this PR can be merged. According to the design, there would be a sub-command named istioctl feature-usage to handle Istio features and use these fields.

google-cla · 2021-09-03T02:55:56Z

CLAs look good, thanks!

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

zhlsunshine · 2021-12-09T08:11:31Z

Hi @howardjohn new submit to remove proto annotations of name based on comment here , I will fetch the necessary information related to name as kubectl explain DestinationRule.spec.exportTo does, then list them for display purpose.

zhlsunshine · 2022-02-23T10:08:35Z

Hi @howardjohn, after some thinking and discussion, I think it's an agree on dropping the IstioFeature field name, and just 2 fields left as below:

message IstioFeature {
	// label the feature's status, available status values may be alpha, beta and stable 
	// there would be experimental in future.
	optional FeatureStatus status = 1;
	// id means the feature id which can be mapped here: https://github.com/istio/enhancements/blob/master/features.yaml
	// it should be contained in id section of features under this yaml file.
	optional string id = 2;
}

Could you please help to check and approve it? Thanks! ^_^

common-protos/istio.io/extensions/istio_feature.proto

howardjohn · 2022-03-01T23:21:26Z

networking/v1alpha3/destination_rule.proto

@@ -238,7 +239,7 @@ message DestinationRule {
  // The value "." is reserved and defines an export to the same namespace that
  // the destination rule is declared in. Similarly, the value "*" is reserved and
  // defines an export to all namespaces.
-  repeated string export_to = 4;
+  repeated string export_to = 4 [(istio.extensions.feature) = {status: STABLE, id: "traffic.control"}];


what happens when we have a field that is associated with multiple features?

Generally speaking, multiple features should have the same feature status if they are included in the same field, even if feature status is not the same, it's okay to provide more information in https://github.com/istio/enhancements/blob/master/features.yaml or append additional feature id to field id as well. Moreover, this situation is uncommon.

jacob-delgado · 2022-03-14T17:25:47Z

common-protos/istio.io/extensions/istio_feature.proto

+	optional FeatureStatus status = 1;
+	// id means the feature id which can be mapped here: https://github.com/istio/enhancements/blob/master/features.yaml
+	// it should be contained in id section of features under this yaml file.
+	optional string id = 2;


Given John's comment below I think this would be best suited as repeated string id = 2;. A repeated item that's empty is essentially optional.

@jacob-delgado okay, I will add repeated for field id. BTW, I think field status should be necessary to add repeated as well.

istio-testing · 2022-03-14T22:10:17Z

@zhlsunshine: 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/test-infra repository.

jacob-delgado

LGTM. You should bring this to the APAC meeting next week to get the RFC approved.

zhlsunshine · 2022-03-18T00:31:38Z

LGTM. You should bring this to the APAC meeting next week to get the RFC approved.

great idea!

zhlsunshine requested a review from a team as a code owner June 1, 2021 07:00

google-cla bot added the cla: yes Set by the Google CLA bot to indicate the author of a PR has signed the Google CLA. label Jun 1, 2021

istio-testing added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 1, 2021

zhlsunshine added the release-notes-none Indicates a PR that does not require release notes. label Jun 1, 2021

howardjohn assigned jasonwzm Jun 1, 2021

zhlsunshine requested review from dcberg, duderino, linsun, louiscryan, nrjpoddar and smawson as code owners June 2, 2021 01:44

istio-testing added size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jun 2, 2021

zhlsunshine force-pushed the feature branch from a89bbab to 75bd2b4 Compare June 3, 2021 06:22

zhlsunshine requested review from brian-avery and howardjohn as code owners July 2, 2021 06:28

istio-testing added size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 2, 2021

linsun reviewed Aug 28, 2021

View reviewed changes

common-protos/istio.io/extensions/field_feature.proto Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

linsun reviewed Aug 28, 2021

View reviewed changes

esnible mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2021

Istio UX 1.12 roadmap istio/istio#34682

Closed

11 tasks

istio-testing added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR needs to be rebased before being merged label Sep 11, 2021

zhlsunshine requested a review from ericvn as a code owner December 9, 2021 07:39

istio-testing removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR needs to be rebased before being merged label Dec 9, 2021

istio-policy-bot closed this Dec 9, 2021

istio-policy-bot added the lifecycle/automatically-closed Indicates a PR or issue that has been closed automatically. label Dec 9, 2021

zhlsunshine reopened this Dec 9, 2021

istio-testing added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR needs to be rebased before being merged label Feb 9, 2022

new submit for code rebasing

7048719

zhlsunshine force-pushed the feature branch from 017048a to 7048719 Compare February 23, 2022 09:58

istio-testing removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR needs to be rebased before being merged label Feb 23, 2022

istio-policy-bot closed this Feb 23, 2022

zhlsunshine reopened this Feb 23, 2022

howardjohn reviewed Mar 1, 2022

View reviewed changes

jacob-delgado reviewed Mar 14, 2022

View reviewed changes

istio-testing added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR needs to be rebased before being merged label Mar 14, 2022

jacob-delgado reviewed Mar 17, 2022

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Istio API Feature Status using proto annotations #2013

Istio API Feature Status using proto annotations #2013

zhlsunshine commented Jun 1, 2021

istio-policy-bot commented Jun 1, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Jun 1, 2021

therealmitchconnors commented Jun 2, 2021

jasonwzm commented Jun 2, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Jun 3, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Jul 2, 2021

google-cla bot commented Aug 26, 2021

linsun Aug 28, 2021 •

edited

zhlsunshine Aug 30, 2021

linsun Aug 28, 2021

zhlsunshine Aug 30, 2021

google-cla bot commented Aug 30, 2021

google-cla bot commented Aug 30, 2021

howardjohn commented Aug 30, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Aug 31, 2021

google-cla bot commented Sep 3, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Dec 9, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Feb 23, 2022

howardjohn Mar 1, 2022

zhlsunshine Mar 3, 2022

jacob-delgado Mar 14, 2022

zhlsunshine Mar 16, 2022

zhlsunshine Mar 16, 2022

istio-testing commented Mar 14, 2022

jacob-delgado left a comment

zhlsunshine commented Mar 18, 2022

Istio API Feature Status using proto annotations #2013

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Istio API Feature Status using proto annotations #2013

Conversation

zhlsunshine commented Jun 1, 2021

istio-policy-bot commented Jun 1, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Jun 1, 2021

therealmitchconnors commented Jun 2, 2021

jasonwzm commented Jun 2, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Jun 3, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Jul 2, 2021

google-cla bot commented Aug 26, 2021

linsun Aug 28, 2021 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

google-cla bot commented Aug 30, 2021

google-cla bot commented Aug 30, 2021

howardjohn commented Aug 30, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Aug 31, 2021

google-cla bot commented Sep 3, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Dec 9, 2021

zhlsunshine commented Feb 23, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

istio-testing commented Mar 14, 2022

jacob-delgado left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

zhlsunshine commented Mar 18, 2022

linsun Aug 28, 2021 •

edited