dynamic resource allocation: avoid apiserver complaint about list content #115354
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note
k8s-ci-robot
added
area/code-generation
kind/api-change
|
This PR may require API review. If so, when the changes are ready, complete the pre-review checklist and request an API review. Status of requested reviews is tracked in the API Review project. |
…tent This fixes the following warning (error?) in the apiserver: E0126 18:10:38.665239 16370 fieldmanager.go:210] "[SHOULD NOT HAPPEN] failed to update managedFields" err="failed to convert new object (test/claim-84; resource.k8s.io/v1alpha1, Kind=ResourceClaim) to smd typed: .status.reservedFor: element 0: associative list without keys has an element that's a map type" VersionKind="/, Kind=" namespace="test" name="claim-84" The root cause is the same as in e50e8a0: nothing in Kubernetes outright complains about a list of items where the item type is comparable in Go, but not a simple type. This nonetheless isn't supposed to be done in the API and can causes problems elsewhere. For the ReservedFor field, everything seems to work okay except for the warning. However, it's better to follow conventions and use a map. This is possible in this case because UID is guaranteed to be a unique key. Validation is now stricter than before, which is a good thing: previously, two entries with the same UID were allowed as long as some other field was different, which wasn't a situation that should have been allowed.
pohly
force-pushed
the
dra-reserved-for-list-type
branch
from
28b8af8
to
508cd60
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/M
|
/test pull-kubernetes-kind-dra |
pohly
added a commit
to pohly/test-infra
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2023
kubernetes/kubernetes#115354 made some change to the resource.k8s.io API group and didn't trigger the optional job.
|
LGTM, from issue #115330 perspective. |
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: liggitt, pohly The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 0a46ccf6b42de91f4431f2923cfb24bdf2d64787
|
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
I would consider a backport to 1.26 just to avoid propagating the invalid schema, even though it's an alpha schema |
|
Okay, I'll cherry-pick once it's merged. |
|
/triage accepted |
k8s-ci-robot
added
triage/accepted
k8s-ci-robot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2023
…4-origin-release-1.26 Automated cherry pick of #115354: dynamic resource allocation: avoid apiserver complaint about
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
This fixes the following warning (error?) in the apiserver:
The root cause is the same as in e50e8a0: nothing in Kubernetes outright complains about a list of items where the item type is comparable in Go, but not a simple type. This nonetheless isn't supposed to be done in the API and can causes problems elsewhere.
For the ReservedFor field, everything seems to work okay except for the warning. However, it's better to follow conventions and use a map. This is possible in this case because UID is guaranteed to be a unique key.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #115330
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?