SPLAT-2206: Added AWS dedicated host support #2484
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
|
@vr4manta: This pull request references SPLAT-2206 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
1 similar comment
|
@vr4manta: This pull request references SPLAT-2206 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
Hello @vr4manta! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api: |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
size/S
|
Does this API already exist upstream in CAPA? |
vr4manta
force-pushed
the
SPLAT-2206
branch
from
165b8e8 to
92afa52
Compare
openshift-ci
bot
added
size/M
@JoelSpeed Yes, this is already merged and pulled into OpenShift. Working on just the static version since dynamic is not finished upstream. |
|
/assign |
vr4manta
changed the title
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
vr4manta
force-pushed
the
SPLAT-2206
branch
from
92afa52 to
f9a28b8
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
vr4manta
force-pushed
the
SPLAT-2206
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0fcff1c to
b088b27
Compare
machine/v1beta1/types_awsprovider.go
Outdated
| // +kubebuilder:validation:MaxLength=19 | ||
| // +openshift:enable:FeatureGate=AWSDedicatedHosts | ||
| // +optional | ||
| HostID *string `json:"hostID,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the difference between setting this to "" and omitting the field entirely?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There should be no difference. I would assume this field is not set if user not intending to place instances into a dedicated host.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If there is no difference, this should not be a pointer and should have a minimum length of 1. This is probably what the linter is complaining about.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since this is validated by Go based webhooks, and not openapi, the linter is wrong on this one.
If we make this not a pointer, then the Go code has no way to know if this was deliberately set to "" or not. We don't want "" to be valid, so this needs to be a pointer so that we can check that.
In this case (and future cases like this in these providerspec APIs) we will want to make exceptions to the serialization rules on the linter.
We may want to even disable the serialization rules on these particular APIs somehow 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, I went into standard API review mode here and forgot this API is webhook validation 🤦
Thanks for catching that!
We may want to even disable the serialization rules on these particular APIs somehow
Can we do this via codegen configurations?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we do this via codegen configurations?
No, but we should be able to disable using the .golangci-lint.yaml config, ideally we could have a different config for the APIs that act like this, these MAPI ones aren't the only ones (e.g. the aggregated APIs we support too)
vr4manta
force-pushed
the
SPLAT-2206
branch
from
b088b27 to
9355a76
Compare
vr4manta
changed the title
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
vr4manta
force-pushed
the
SPLAT-2206
branch
2 times, most recently
from
06d98ae to
9589e77
Compare
vr4manta
force-pushed
the
SPLAT-2206
branch
4 times, most recently
from
c36f492 to
c503f95
Compare
machine/v1beta1/types_awsprovider.go
Outdated
| // When Affinity is set to AnyAvailable, and you stop and restart the instance, it can be restarted on any available host. | ||
| // +required | ||
| // +unionDiscriminator | ||
| Affinity HostAffinity `json:"affinity,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because this is validated in a go webhook, do you need this to be a pointer so you can explicitly distinguish between not set and intentionally set to the empty string value ("") and return the appropriate field error (i.e required vs invalid value)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am confused. If I make it a pointer, i get:
machine/v1beta1/types_awsprovider.go:415:2: requiredfields: field Affinity does not allow the zero value. The field does not need to be a pointer. (kubeapilinter)
Affinity *HostAffinity `json:"affinity,omitempty"`If its required according to the godoc, I'd assume we are forcing user to set this field since it is the discriminator. With the parent hostPlacement being optional, then having it required to be set makes the most sense. I was planning on having the webhook look at it and if "", I would just set it to the default (which I cannot set in the godoc since above you said it needs to be removed for discriminators).
All of the changes for this API are being processed in the hood and godoc is gonna be ignored, but we are making it match what we want it to be.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am confused. If I make it a pointer, i get:
machine/v1beta1/types_awsprovider.go:415:2: requiredfields: field Affinity does not allow the zero value. The field does not need to be a pointer. (kubeapilinter)
Affinity *HostAffinityjson:"affinity,omitempty"
Yeah, this is a known issue with our linter (that should actually be fixed more recently - you might need to rebase to pick up the fix on your branch). It should be safe to ignore for this case - I can override the check if this is the only failure.
If its required according to the godoc, I'd assume we are forcing user to set this field since it is the discriminator. With the parent
hostPlacementbeing optional, then having it required to be set makes the most sense. I was planning on having the webhook look at it and if "", I would just set it to the default (which I cannot set in the godoc since above you said it needs to be removed for discriminators).All of the changes for this API are being processed in the hood and godoc is gonna be ignored, but we are making it match what we want it to be.
Yes, if it is required we will be forcing the user to specify the field but we will have to do that through the webhook validation logic.
If you'd like to use the empty string ("") to signal that this is invalid you can, but that imposes a limitation - you can't determine whether or not it is the empty string because it was not provided or if an end-user explicitly set it to the empty string value.
Being able to distinguish between not provided vs explicitly set to the empty string by an end-user allows you to return more specific error messages.
For example, if you made this a pointer you can do something like:
// return an error message explicitly stating that the field is required and must be specified
if affinity == nil {
return fields.Required(...)
}
// return an error message explicitly stating that the provided value is invalid and must match an allowed value
if affinity == "" {
return fields.Invalid(...)
}Without it being a pointer, you may be limited to only really providing an error message that states the value is invalid - which could cause confusion for a user who didn't set the field.
An alternative here if you want to keep the non-pointer approach is to always return an error that says something like "affinity is required and must be set to one of {allowedValues}".
I was planning on having the webhook look at it and if "", I would just set it to the default (which I cannot set in the godoc since above you said it needs to be removed for discriminators)
Wanted to call this out specifically - don't default the discriminator at all. Make the user make an explicit choice here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I'll rebase and try with pointer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aside from one minor comment, this looks good to me.
I can't remember if I've already asked this, but do you have a PR up to show the validations implemented in the Go webhook?
Before merging this, I'd like to see that staged and ready to merge so we minimize the risk of this shipping without any backing validations put in place.
machine/v1beta1/types_awsprovider.go
Outdated
| type HostPlacement struct { | ||
| // affinity specifies the affinity setting for the instance. | ||
| // Allowed values are AnyAvailable and DedicatedHost. | ||
| // When Affinity is set to DedicatedHost, an instance started onto a specific host always restarts on the same host if stopped. In this scenario, the `dedicated` field must be set. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // When Affinity is set to DedicatedHost, an instance started onto a specific host always restarts on the same host if stopped. In this scenario, the `dedicated` field must be set. | |
| // When Affinity is set to DedicatedHost, an instance started onto a specific host always restarts on the same host if stopped. In this scenario, the `dedicatedHost` field must be set. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had validations yes, but was waiting for API to get finalized to update them. If you are happy after this change, I can work on updating that PR. I'll update top comment to contain all the related PRs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good to me. Thanks!
|
@vr4manta: This pull request references SPLAT-2206 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
@vr4manta: This pull request references SPLAT-2206 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
@vr4manta: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
4 participants
SPLAT-2206
Changes
Blocks