Iflib newKO

[henderiw]

aligned the interface with the new parser implementation
added setters using the real types as this eases validation.

[kispaljr]

My comment for the IPAllocation resource lib, also applies here:
#123 (review)

[gvbalaji]

Please see my comments on #121 which is base for others. I beleive if we take that path implementation of these individual libraries will be simpler.

[kispaljr]

Just wanted to point out that this PR contains files from #121 (that this PR depends on). This may be fine, but it can also trouble if this is merged after #121.
I am not sure what our policy is in this scenario.

[gvbalaji]

Thanks @kispaljr . Yes a rebase with main needed . In addition as discussed this PR will change in many ways and be simpler as we discussed. This will only have methods directly implemented on KubeObjectEx . Those methods will be only a few handful. All the kubeobject create methods are handled in base parser as well.

[gvbalaji]

Thanks @henderiw . I was hoping we will avoid all "Newfromxxx "methods in this file. Basically instead of creating a new structure, add the interface specific methods directly on KubeObjectEx created in the base parser( few get/set/deletes). Then the usage pattern would be callers first create the object using the base parser and call respective methods based on which function they are implementing. That way these libraries will be simpler. What do you think?

Specifically only these methods

GetAttachmentType
GetCNIType
GetNetworkInstanceName
SetAttachmentType
SetCNIType
SetNetworkInstanceName
SetSpec
DeleteAttachmentType
DeleteCNIType

(Updating comment)
I understand the approach you've taken is cleaner than what I am suggesting as the methods will be scoped to a particular structure and is very definitive. I am thinking since we are on both sides of the library (library consumers and library implementors) probably it's okay to have library methods on the base structure (no interface). Love to hear your thoughts.

[johnbelamaric]

It's more idiomatic in Go to avoid field setters and getters. So IMO, methods to create from YAML or Go struct, and to convert to Go struct, and to set via Go struct are all we need, as described here: #123 (review)

[henderiw]

Aligned the interface lib with the new setSpec library in kubeobject

[gvbalaji]

Thanks @henderiw . I am on the fence if we really need this with all the changes we made to the base KubeObjectExt. Added a couple of comments.
I think the tests for SetSpec and SetStatus are useful. Even if we decide to do away from this library, I suggest we keep the tests by moving them to the base KubeObjectExt .

[gvbalaji]

Is there a need to create this structure? Can the functions developers just directly create the base KubeObjectExt structure? All the methods are used from there anyway.

[henderiw]

The value is you get explicit type checking for the object and we need this in several libraries. This is the reason to do this. otherwise people need to implement this in each function independently again and again.

[henderiw]

what I did not do so far is have the explicit SeptSpec and SetStatus with their specific type, so this would add even more type awareness.

[henderiw]

the way to look at this is a the specific KubeObj extensions for the InterfaceReq CRD

[gvbalaji]

/approve

[henderiw]

/approve

[nephio-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: gvbalaji, henderiw

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 [henderiw]

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

[kispaljr]

If I understand correctly, the main reason to have this wrapper at all, is the lack of static type checking in the interface{} type parameter of SetSpec and SetStatus. I agree that this is a valid concern, however I suggest to use the power of Go generics to fix this, as opposed to implementing it one-by-one for each type (avoiding this is the main reason for having generics).
Here s my proposal to add static type checking: #141

[ganchandrasekaran]

/lgtm