Move validation to be per-API-version

[thockin]

Validation as it exists today is pretty wrong - it tracks internal types. Once we have long-term support for v1 API and are deep into v2 rework, the validation errors that are produced for v1 will be less and less useful.

We've gone back and forth about this but have not yet come up with a good answer on how to do this generically. I propose we just move it to be per-version, same as defaulting.

Given that v1beta[12] are on the block right now and v1beta3 will be soon, this is the right time. The same day we delete v1beta3 we should move pkg/api/validation into v1 and make it use versioned types.

Yes, it will be tedious to make changes, but I think that is the cost of having multiple versioned APIs in support cycles.

[nikhiljindal]

My impression was that we have decided that we want to go this path.
Its not part of 1.0 since that will have just one API version: #3084 (comment)

[hurf]

Agree with @thockin , put validation on internal structs also looks odd to me. I think better to validate template itself for each version. Though #3084 may not be an issue now, it will come out along with v2, sooner or later we had to resolve this problem. I guess @nikhiljindal 's concern is mainly about limited timeline?

[bgrant0607]

I think we have agreed in principle that validation should be versioned. I don't see this happening before 1.0, however. We should do it before introducing the v2 api.

See also #3084, #5889, #8116, #6210, #1451

@lavalamp @smarterclayton

[thockin]

That's fine, my point was we should do it after v1b3 dies and before v2b1
is born :)

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Brian Grant notifications@github.com
wrote:

I think we have agreed in principle that validation should be versioned. I
don't see this happening before 1.0, however. We should do it before
introducing the v2 api.

See also #3084
#3084, #5889
#5889, #8116
#8116, #6210
#6210, #1451
#1451

@lavalamp https://github.com/lavalamp @smarterclayton
https://github.com/smarterclayton

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8550 (comment)
.

[nikhiljindal]

cc @caesarxuchao