ValidatingAdmissionPolicy - Type Checking for API Expensions types #119109
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
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
jiahuif
force-pushed
the
feature/validating-admission-policy/crd-typechecking
branch
from
698042c
to
30f2942
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/M
16 tasks
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/L
jiahuif
force-pushed
the
feature/validating-admission-policy/crd-typechecking
branch
from
f108430
to
e76a39c
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/XL
jiahuif
force-pushed
the
feature/validating-admission-policy/crd-typechecking
branch
from
5b09d54
to
b95e42b
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/L
jiahuif
force-pushed
the
feature/validating-admission-policy/crd-typechecking
branch
from
b95e42b
to
e0af8fb
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
approved
|
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind-alpha-features |
|
/remove-label kind/api-change |
|
@jiahuif: The label(s) 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
The alpha features E2E suite has some failure that is not related to this feature. The suite is not required for merging anyways. |
|
@jiahuif: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
jiahuif
force-pushed
the
feature/validating-admission-policy/crd-typechecking
branch
from
e0af8fb
to
bc3a8ba
Compare
|
beta features e2e job seems broken. I can fix it after code freeze. Here is the result of the e2e suite running locally. |
jiahuif
force-pushed
the
feature/validating-admission-policy/crd-typechecking
branch
from
bc3a8ba
to
fd13266
Compare
|
Re-based to resolve merge conflict. PTAL. |
|
The currently PR aims to add the type checking for CRD and aggregated types with following limitations:
This sounds good to me since the feature is still in beta and the changes improved the usability without modifying any existing behavior. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 183ea48b7b17b0e32ea3d931de741824dbadb877
|
|
Additional thoughts(Thanks @jiahuif for the initial scalability test result. Could you briefly summarize here or somewhere in a doc?): Keep watching all resources types for type checking seems not scale great(especially with large number of policies across reference large number of CRDs with the current schema watcher). Curious on other thoughts on the tradeoffs between usability of type checking VS scalability :) |
|
/approve |
|
/assign @deads2k |
deads2k
reviewed
Oct 30, 2023
| @@ -268,7 +268,16 @@ func (c *TypeChecker) typesToCheck(p *v1beta1.ValidatingAdmissionPolicy) []schem | |||
| } | |||
| resolved, err := c.RestMapper.KindsFor(gvr) | |||
| if err != nil { | |||
| continue | |||
| if restMapperRefreshAttempted { | |||
| // RESTMapper refresh happens at most once per policy | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's actually once per policy per reconcile, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes! Because there is no schema-watching re-requeue, a policy can be rechecked only due to a mutation to itself. If the policy mutated, the referred set of resources may change too (and we don't track that), thus once per policy-reconcile is reasonable.
|
with aggregated discovery the additional discovery cost each reconcile is tolerable. /approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: deads2k, jiahuif, jpbetz 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
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 feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds ValidatingAdmissionPolicy type checking support for CRDs and other API extensions APIS
Special notes for your reviewer:
There is no API changes.
Performance impact:
The RESTMapper is refreshed more often. To limit the impact, the RESTMapper can only be refreshed at most once per policy.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: