fix bug that spreadconstraints are not validated correctly #3232

whitewindmills · 2023-03-02T07:37:33Z

What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:
fix bug that spreadconstraints are not validated correctly
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #3231
Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

`karmada-webhook`: Introduced validation to ensure the `.spec.placement.spreadConstraints.maxGroups/minGroups` in PropagationPolicy is declared with a reasonable value.

codecov-commenter · 2023-03-02T07:54:07Z

Codecov Report

Merging #3232 (ae325b8) into master (0652cfb) will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3232      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   49.07%   49.15%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         203      206       +3     
  Lines       18354    18377      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits         9008     9033      +25     
  Misses       8856     8856              
+ Partials      490      488       -2

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`49.15% <100.00%> (+0.07%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/util/validation/validation.go	`86.56% <100.00%> (+0.62%)`	⬆️
pkg/util/worker.go	`66.66% <0.00%> (-4.77%)`	⬇️
pkg/search/proxy/store/util.go	`93.36% <0.00%> (-0.95%)`	⬇️
pkg/util/helper/work.go	`42.45% <0.00%> (-0.82%)`	⬇️
pkg/util/helper/binding.go	`72.00% <0.00%> (-0.34%)`	⬇️
pkg/util/helper/workstatus.go	`10.19% <0.00%> (-0.10%)`	⬇️
pkg/controllers/binding/binding_controller.go	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...ers/binding/cluster_resource_binding_controller.go	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
pkg/controllers/status/workstatus_controller.go
pkg/controllers/status/common.go	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 7 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

XiShanYongYe-Chang

Perhaps we need to specify in the API declaration as well:

karmada/pkg/apis/policy/v1alpha1/propagation_types.go

Lines 233 to 240 in 0652cfb

    
           // MaxGroups restricts the maximum number of cluster groups to be selected. 
        
           // +optional 
        
           MaxGroups int `json:"maxGroups,omitempty"` 
        
           // MinGroups restricts the minimum number of cluster groups to be selected. 
        
           // Defaults to 1. 
        
           // +optional 
        
           MinGroups int `json:"minGroups,omitempty"`

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2023-03-02T07:57:02Z

pkg/util/helper/policy.go

@@ -25,6 +25,11 @@ func SetDefaultSpreadConstraints(spreadConstraints []policyv1alpha1.SpreadConstr
 			klog.Infof("Setting default MinGroups to 1")
 			spreadConstraints[i].MinGroups = 1
 		}
+
+		if spreadConstraints[i].MaxGroups == 0 && spreadConstraints[i].MinGroups > 0 {


For spreadConstraints[i].MinGroups > 0, this part of the judgment seems redundant. It has been ensured before that the value is greater than 0.

If minGroups is less than zero? This part of the judgment is necessary.

Isn't this a situation that has been intercepted by validate?

intercepted

No, mutating webhook works first!

I recommend using +kubebuilder:validation:Minimum=1 and +kubebuilder:default=1.

No, mutating webhook works first!

Ok

I recommend using +kubebuilder:validation:Minimum=1.

Does this conflict with // +optional?

I recommend using +kubebuilder:validation:Minimum=1 and +kubebuilder:default=1.

I don't see any difference in performance, because the webhook will always be called, but this part of the verification is done by the apiserver.

Now that there is a validating webhook, it is better to hand over the verification work to webhook instead of webhook and apiserver co-work this validating work.

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2023-03-02T08:00:52Z

pkg/util/validation/validation.go

+		if constraint.MaxGroups < 0 {
+			allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Invalid(fldPath.Index(index), constraint, "maxGroups lower than 0 is not allowed"))
+		}
+


Do we need to check that MaxGroups cannot be less than MinGroups?

e need to check that MaxGroups cannot be less than MinGroups?

Why not? MaxGroups should not be always less than MinGroups, otherwise why is it named MaxGroups and MinGroups.

Sorry, I missed it. There's already a judgment in the logic.

MaxGroups could equal 0? If so, it means what? i.e., HPA minReplicas could only be >=1. I also think MinGroups should >=1

No, after mutating, MaxGroups could be more than 0 or less than 0, never be 0.

whitewindmills · 2023-03-02T08:22:32Z

Perhaps we need to specify in the API declaration as well:

karmada/pkg/apis/policy/v1alpha1/propagation_types.go

Lines 233 to 240 in 0652cfb

// MaxGroups restricts the maximum number of cluster groups to be selected.

// +optional

MaxGroups int `json:"maxGroups,omitempty"`

// MinGroups restricts the minimum number of cluster groups to be selected.

// Defaults to 1.

// +optional

MinGroups int `json:"minGroups,omitempty"`

You're right.

whitewindmills · 2023-03-02T09:01:13Z

Perhaps we need to specify in the API declaration as well:

karmada/pkg/apis/policy/v1alpha1/propagation_types.go

Lines 233 to 240 in 0652cfb

// MaxGroups restricts the maximum number of cluster groups to be selected.

// +optional

MaxGroups int `json:"maxGroups,omitempty"`

// MinGroups restricts the minimum number of cluster groups to be selected.

// Defaults to 1.

// +optional

MinGroups int `json:"minGroups,omitempty"`

You're right.

How about this comment?

// Defaults to MinGroups if MinGroups is more than 0.

whitewindmills · 2023-03-02T09:02:28Z

Sorry, I accidentally clicked the close button.

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2023-03-02T09:14:39Z

// Defaults to MinGroups.

IMOP, it will be enough.

RainbowMango · 2023-03-06T04:07:48Z

/assign

RainbowMango

The validation part sounds good to me. And I believe this PR is more like focus on the validation instead of the default value:)

RainbowMango · 2023-03-06T07:09:12Z

pkg/apis/policy/v1alpha1/propagation_types.go

@@ -231,6 +231,7 @@ type SpreadConstraint struct {
 	SpreadByLabel string `json:"spreadByLabel,omitempty"`

 	// MaxGroups restricts the maximum number of cluster groups to be selected.
+	// Defaults to MinGroups.


I don't think the MaxGroups deserves a default value.
In general, the default value should be a common one that meets most of the use cases.
Here, the valid range of MinGroups is [1, max(int)], in order to let the scheduler works out(or, try to) a result we set the defaults to 1, it seems reasonable, but for MaxGroups which is essentially a limitation to the scheduler that can't spread the group that much, we don't have enough evidence to show that users always set MaxGroups with the same value as MinGroups.

@RainbowMango Hi, thanks for your replies!
I agree with most of your thoughts, but MaxGroups would be zero which is an incomprehensible value for karmada-scheduler without a default value. In other words, how should we(or karmada-scheduler does) understand MaxGroups without a default value?

how should we(or karmada-scheduler does) understand MaxGroups without a default value?

It perhaps can't happen because there is a validation to ensure MaxGroups can't be lower than MinGroups(1).
right?

MaxGroups is not required, so it’s default to 0.

whitewindmills · 2023-03-07T06:31:02Z

@RainbowMango I don't know if you have any other suggestions, if not, I think this PR can be closed.

RainbowMango · 2023-03-07T06:53:55Z

I'm still thinking if the MaxGroups should be set with a default value.
Can we focus on the validation part for this PR?

whitewindmills · 2023-03-07T07:04:42Z

I'm still thinking if the MaxGroups should be set with a default value.
Can we focus on the validation part for this PR?

Okay, I'll only retain the validation part for this PR due to the difference of opinion for MaxGroups.

RainbowMango · 2023-03-07T07:42:45Z

OK, thanks.

Signed-off-by: whitewindmills <jayfantasyhjh@gmail.com>

RainbowMango

/lgtm
/approve

Thanks.

karmada-bot · 2023-03-07T09:49:40Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: RainbowMango

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:

~~OWNERS~~ [RainbowMango]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

karmada-bot added the kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. label Mar 2, 2023

karmada-bot requested review from RainbowMango and XiShanYongYe-Chang March 2, 2023 07:37

karmada-bot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Mar 2, 2023

XiShanYongYe-Chang reviewed Mar 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

whitewindmills closed this Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills reopened this Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills force-pushed the spreadconstraints-validation branch 2 times, most recently from b5278f5 to 6570284 Compare March 2, 2023 09:37

RainbowMango mentioned this pull request Mar 2, 2023

pp/cpp's spreadconstraints are not validated correctly #3231

Closed

karmada-bot assigned RainbowMango Mar 6, 2023

RainbowMango reviewed Mar 6, 2023

View reviewed changes

fix bug that spreadconstraints are not validated correctly

ae325b8

Signed-off-by: whitewindmills <jayfantasyhjh@gmail.com>

whitewindmills force-pushed the spreadconstraints-validation branch from 6570284 to ae325b8 Compare March 7, 2023 09:32

whitewindmills requested a review from RainbowMango March 7, 2023 09:33

RainbowMango approved these changes Mar 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

karmada-bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 7, 2023

karmada-bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 7, 2023

RainbowMango removed the kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. label Mar 7, 2023

RainbowMango added kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. labels Mar 7, 2023

RainbowMango added this to the v1.6 milestone Mar 7, 2023

karmada-bot merged commit 1a1a4b2 into karmada-io:master Mar 7, 2023

whitewindmills deleted the spreadconstraints-validation branch March 8, 2023 02:15

whitewindmills mentioned this pull request Mar 30, 2023

REQUEST: New membership for whitewindmills karmada-io/community#25

Closed

8 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix bug that spreadconstraints are not validated correctly #3232

fix bug that spreadconstraints are not validated correctly #3232

whitewindmills commented Mar 2, 2023 •

edited by RainbowMango

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Mar 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading

XiShanYongYe-Chang left a comment

XiShanYongYe-Chang Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills Mar 2, 2023

XiShanYongYe-Chang Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills Mar 2, 2023

chaunceyjiang Mar 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading

XiShanYongYe-Chang Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills Mar 2, 2023

XiShanYongYe-Chang Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills Mar 2, 2023

XiShanYongYe-Chang Mar 2, 2023

jwcesign Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills commented Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills commented Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills commented Mar 2, 2023

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Mar 2, 2023

RainbowMango commented Mar 6, 2023

RainbowMango left a comment

RainbowMango Mar 6, 2023

whitewindmills Mar 6, 2023

RainbowMango Mar 6, 2023

whitewindmills Mar 6, 2023

whitewindmills commented Mar 7, 2023

RainbowMango commented Mar 7, 2023

whitewindmills commented Mar 7, 2023

RainbowMango commented Mar 7, 2023

RainbowMango left a comment

karmada-bot commented Mar 7, 2023

	// MaxGroups restricts the maximum number of cluster groups to be selected.
	// +optional
	MaxGroups int `json:"maxGroups,omitempty"`

	// MinGroups restricts the minimum number of cluster groups to be selected.
	// Defaults to 1.
	// +optional
	MinGroups int `json:"minGroups,omitempty"`

fix bug that spreadconstraints are not validated correctly #3232

fix bug that spreadconstraints are not validated correctly #3232

Conversation

whitewindmills commented Mar 2, 2023 • edited by RainbowMango Loading

codecov-commenter commented Mar 2, 2023 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

XiShanYongYe-Chang left a 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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chaunceyjiang Mar 2, 2023 • edited Loading

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

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

whitewindmills commented Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills commented Mar 2, 2023

whitewindmills commented Mar 2, 2023

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Mar 2, 2023

RainbowMango commented Mar 6, 2023

RainbowMango left a 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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

whitewindmills commented Mar 7, 2023

RainbowMango commented Mar 7, 2023

whitewindmills commented Mar 7, 2023

RainbowMango commented Mar 7, 2023

RainbowMango left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

karmada-bot commented Mar 7, 2023

whitewindmills commented Mar 2, 2023 •

edited by RainbowMango

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Mar 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading

chaunceyjiang Mar 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading