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
add v1beta3 for Priority And Fairness #112306
Conversation
bc33519
to
d46623f
Compare
f8c6828
to
8ed3afd
Compare
dbb4b58
to
b8d0b47
Compare
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-ubuntu-containerd |
/test pull-kubernetes-unit |
it's ready for another pass, thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/LGTM
Thanks!
/cc |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Couple questions:
- Since the patch annotation is added and the controller switched to use v1beta3, should [reset_fields_test.go](
kubernetes/test/integration/apiserver/apply/reset_fields_test.go
Lines 73 to 77 in c012d90
var resetFieldsSkippedResources = map[string]struct{}{ // TODO: flowschemas is flaking, // possible bug in the flowschemas controller. "flowschemas": {}, } - Maybe worth to keep in mind(Could be added in a followup as well): test/integration/apiserver/flowcontrol/fs_condition_test.go
- If we plan to address 1, maybe mention this PR will fix flowschemas resource is currently skipped by TestApplyResetFields test. #104842
- Could be a followup PR: update lifecycle directives on old flowcontrol versions to point to new v1beta3 version
e.g. https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/staging/src/k8s.io/api/flowcontrol/v1beta1/types.go#L108 and v1alpha1 and v1beta2 types
Thank you! :)
thanks for the API review, marking API changes as approved looks like dropping the exclusion from reset_fields_test.go and making sure the test doesn't flake is the only outstanding thing for this PR |
I have an open PR #112575 for that. I also tested locally. stress test on
stress test on
stress test on
Once we merge #112575, I will keep an eye on CI just to make sure we don't see the flakes. |
/approve |
sounds good, can fast-follow this PR with #112575 |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: liggitt, MikeSpreitzer, tkashem 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 |
Great to see it merged - thanks! |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #107574
Fixes #104842
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: