New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Getting CRD Validation to Beta #53829

Closed
colemickens opened this Issue Oct 12, 2017 · 8 comments

Comments

6 participants
@colemickens
Contributor

colemickens commented Oct 12, 2017

This is a tracking issue for discussion about what needs to be done in order to move CRD Validation to Beta for 1.9.

Related links:

Additional discussions:

@colemickens

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colemickens

colemickens Oct 12, 2017

Contributor

/sig api-machinery

Contributor

colemickens commented Oct 12, 2017

/sig api-machinery

@sttts

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sttts

sttts Oct 13, 2017

Contributor

Seeing these features, but they are not necessarily blocking for beta:

  • defaulting #52034
  • readonly fields
  • JSON schema references to other APIGroups, e.g. embedding a PodSpec schema.

As far as I see, all of these can be added post-beta. Right now we forbid setting default values and marking fields as readonly. So nobody using validation now (or with a beta without these features) will be surprised when we add them.

JSON schema references to other APIGroups just do not exist right now. We have to "invent" a reference name space and resolve the references. This can be added anytime as an additional feature.

Contributor

sttts commented Oct 13, 2017

Seeing these features, but they are not necessarily blocking for beta:

  • defaulting #52034
  • readonly fields
  • JSON schema references to other APIGroups, e.g. embedding a PodSpec schema.

As far as I see, all of these can be added post-beta. Right now we forbid setting default values and marking fields as readonly. So nobody using validation now (or with a beta without these features) will be surprised when we add them.

JSON schema references to other APIGroups just do not exist right now. We have to "invent" a reference name space and resolve the references. This can be added anytime as an additional feature.

@sttts

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sttts

sttts Oct 25, 2017

Contributor

As discussed today in the sig-api-machinery meeting there are no objections to move forward to beta. @colemickens will add updates for that in the features repo.

Contributor

sttts commented Oct 25, 2017

As discussed today in the sig-api-machinery meeting there are no objections to move forward to beta. @colemickens will add updates for that in the features repo.

@nikhita

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nikhita

nikhita Oct 26, 2017

Member

/area third-party-resource
/cc @deads2k @enisoc @mbohlool @munnerz

Member

nikhita commented Oct 26, 2017

/area third-party-resource
/cc @deads2k @enisoc @mbohlool @munnerz

@nikhita

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nikhita
Member

nikhita commented Oct 26, 2017

Ref #54579.

@deads2k

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@deads2k

deads2k Oct 26, 2017

Contributor

As discussed today in the sig-api-machinery meeting there are no objections to move forward to beta. @colemickens will add updates for that in the features repo.

Agree.

Contributor

deads2k commented Oct 26, 2017

As discussed today in the sig-api-machinery meeting there are no objections to move forward to beta. @colemickens will add updates for that in the features repo.

Agree.

@colemickens

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colemickens

colemickens Oct 26, 2017

Contributor

It looks like @sttts has already updated the only tracking issue we have in kubernetes/features. I've sent the PR for the feature gate promotion: #54647

Contributor

colemickens commented Oct 26, 2017

It looks like @sttts has already updated the only tracking issue we have in kubernetes/features. I've sent the PR for the feature gate promotion: #54647

@colemickens

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@colemickens

colemickens Oct 26, 2017

Contributor

And one for the docs: kubernetes/website#6065

Contributor

colemickens commented Oct 26, 2017

And one for the docs: kubernetes/website#6065

k8s-merge-robot added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 16, 2017

Merge pull request #54647 from colemickens/crd-validation-beta
Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.

Validation for CRD custom resources: feature gate promotion alpha->beta

**What this PR does / why we need it**: This promotes CRD Validation from **alpha** to **beta**.

**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #53829

**Special notes for your reviewer**: Issue #53829 discusses potential blockers to promoting CRD Validation to beta. None of the potential blockers are actual blockers, as they can all be accomplished without backward incompatible changes.

**Release note**:

```release-note
Promote validation for custom resources defined through CRD to beta
```

cc: @sttts @nikhita @mbohlool
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment