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

field of Namespace in nodeRef is so odd #58200

Closed
lcfang opened this Issue Jan 12, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@lcfang
Contributor

lcfang commented Jan 12, 2018

Is this a BUG REPORT or FEATURE REQUEST?:

/kind feature

What happened:

I see the code in

nodeRef := &v1.ObjectReference{

Here is the nodeRef, and these all fields are optional, since there is no Namespace for node, why it is here?

What you expected to happen:

Can we delete it here? Or can we add a new feature for node namespace isolation?

How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible):

Anything else we need to know?:

Environment:

  • Kubernetes version (use kubectl version): the latest
@lcfang

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lcfang

lcfang Jan 12, 2018

Contributor

/sig node

Contributor

lcfang commented Jan 12, 2018

/sig node

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added sig/node and removed needs-sig labels Jan 12, 2018

@lcfang

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lcfang
Contributor

lcfang commented Jan 12, 2018

@liggitt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@liggitt

liggitt Jan 13, 2018

Member

v1.ObjectReference is a generic object reference struct, used for both namespaced and unnamespaced references.

"" is the zero value for the namespace field. Omitting Namespace:"" would result in an identical value

Member

liggitt commented Jan 13, 2018

v1.ObjectReference is a generic object reference struct, used for both namespaced and unnamespaced references.

"" is the zero value for the namespace field. Omitting Namespace:"" would result in an identical value

@liggitt liggitt closed this Jan 13, 2018

@lcfang

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lcfang

lcfang Jan 15, 2018

Contributor

Hi @liggitt ,thanks for your reply, I agree the result will be the same.

Contributor

lcfang commented Jan 15, 2018

Hi @liggitt ,thanks for your reply, I agree the result will be the same.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment