WIP: Add machineconfiguration API group #620
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: LorbusChris The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/cc @yuqi-zhang |
|
|
| kind: CustomResourceDefinition | ||
| metadata: | ||
| # name must match the spec fields below, and be in the form: <plural>.<group> | ||
| name: controllerconfigs.machineconfiguration.openshift.io |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i'm not sure this should be part of the openshift/api since this looks like an machine-config-operator internal API..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
they are in the same group at the moment (machineconfiguration.openshift.io). Should we move them out of that group into an MCO-internal group? Are there conventions around this?
machineconfiguration/v1/helpers.go
Outdated
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| // NewMachineConfigPoolCondition creates a new MachineConfigPool condition. | ||
| func NewMachineConfigPoolCondition(condType MachineConfigPoolConditionType, status corev1.ConditionStatus, reason, message string) *MachineConfigPoolCondition { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hm.. the helper functions usually end up in library-go instead of the API..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks like they're not used anywhere else and they could stay in the MCO repo for now.
|
Just to verify, the |
This moves over all external API from the github.com/openshift/machine-config-operator repo, and adds swagger doc generation for it.
LorbusChris
changed the title
|
I've removed the controllerconfig CRD and API from this PR. Please let me know if I should add it back. |
|
I'm not very familiar with how we structure CRDs. It'd obviously be nicer from a maintenance perspective if everything in the |
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| const ( | ||
| GroupName = "machineconfiguration.openshift.io" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this group already exists and this is a straight move?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| plural: containerruntimeconfigs | ||
| singular: containerruntimeconfig | ||
| shortNames: | ||
| - ctrcfg |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this already present in your CRD manifest today? We discourage shortnames on resources that are infrequently used by cluster-admins.
|
|
||
| // MachineConfigRoleLabelKey is metadata key in the MachineConfig. Specifies the node role that config should be applied to. | ||
| // For example: `master` or `worker` | ||
| const MachineConfigRoleLabelKey = "machineconfiguration.openshift.io/role" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
general API note. if you own the schema of the struct, why wasn't this just a top level field?
| type MachineConfigPoolSpec struct { | ||
| // machineConfigSelector specifies a label selector for MachineConfigs. | ||
| // Refer https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/working-with-objects/labels/ on how label and selectors work. | ||
| MachineConfigSelector *metav1.LabelSelector `json:"machineConfigSelector,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=machineConfigSelector"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you need to explain what nil means here. All, none, somethign else?
| MachineConfigSelector *metav1.LabelSelector `json:"machineConfigSelector,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=machineConfigSelector"` | ||
|
|
||
| // nodeSelector specifies a label selector for Machines | ||
| NodeSelector *metav1.LabelSelector `json:"nodeSelector,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=nodeSelector"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
describe the meaning of nil
| // +nullable | ||
| KernelArguments []string `json:"kernelArguments" protobuf:"bytes,3,rep,name=kernelArguments"` | ||
|
|
||
| FIPS bool `json:"fips" protobuf:"varint,4,opt,name=fips"` |
| type MachineConfigSpec struct { | ||
| // OSImageURL specifies the remote location that will be used to | ||
| // fetch the OS. | ||
| OSImageURL string `json:"osImageURL" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=osImageURL"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
missing required/optional if optional, what does empty string mean?
| // fetch the OS. | ||
| OSImageURL string `json:"osImageURL" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=osImageURL"` | ||
| // Config is a Ignition Config object. | ||
| Config runtime.RawExtension `json:"config" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=config"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is fine. You're interpretting the value elsewhere but this eliminated the problematic compile time dep?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes. This is parsed into Ignition.Config by the MCO
| // OSImageURL specifies the remote location that will be used to | ||
| // fetch the OS. | ||
| OSImageURL string `json:"osImageURL" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=osImageURL"` | ||
| // Config is a Ignition Config object. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
point to where the schema is please.
| Config runtime.RawExtension `json:"config" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=config"` | ||
|
|
||
| // +nullable | ||
| KernelArguments []string `json:"kernelArguments" protobuf:"bytes,3,rep,name=kernelArguments"` |
|
|
||
| // maxUnavailable specifies the percentage or constant number of machines that can be updating at any given time. | ||
| // default is 1. | ||
| MaxUnavailable *intstr.IntOrString `json:"maxUnavailable,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,4,opt,name=maxUnavailable"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what does zero mean here? based on comment, this would end poorly.
| // MachineConfigPoolStatusConfiguration stores the current configuration for the pool, and | ||
| // optionally also stores the list of MachineConfig objects used to generate the configuration. | ||
| type MachineConfigPoolStatusConfiguration struct { | ||
| corev1.ObjectReference `json:",inline" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=objectReference"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You probably don't honor all the fields of this struct. We encourage creating specific reference objects so you can provide precise docs. This will need revisiting.
|
|
||
| // source is the list of MachineConfig objects that were used to generate the single MachineConfig object specified in `content`. | ||
| // +optional | ||
| Source []corev1.ObjectReference `json:"source,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,2,rep,name=source"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You probably don't honor all the fields of this struct. We encourage creating specific reference objects so you can provide precise docs. This will need revisiting.
|
|
||
| // KubeletConfigSpec defines the desired state of KubeletConfig | ||
| type KubeletConfigSpec struct { | ||
| MachineConfigPoolSelector *metav1.LabelSelector `json:"machineConfigPoolSelector,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=machineConfigPoolSelector"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
need to describe the meaning of nil
| // KubeletConfigSpec defines the desired state of KubeletConfig | ||
| type KubeletConfigSpec struct { | ||
| MachineConfigPoolSelector *metav1.LabelSelector `json:"machineConfigPoolSelector,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=machineConfigPoolSelector"` | ||
| KubeletConfig *runtime.RawExtension `json:"kubeletConfig,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=kubeletConfig"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
describe the meaning of nil and point to what schema is accepted here.
| KubeletConfigSuccess KubeletConfigStatusConditionType = "Success" | ||
|
|
||
| // KubeletConfigFailure designates a failure applying a KubeletConfig CR. | ||
| KubeletConfigFailure KubeletConfigStatusConditionType = "Failure" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these conditions are a bit odd, since Failure is usually Success == false.
|
deferring to @runcom to answer these questions. I'd prefer to have these issues fixed in the MCO repo before the move |
This removes the hand-rafted API Validation for the RawExtension that contains Ignitition.Config WIP
LorbusChris
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
This is stale. Someone from the MCO team should create a new PR once the API move task has been prioritized and scheduled for a sprint. |
|
@LorbusChris: Closed this PR. 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. |
This moves over the machineconfiguration API from the
github.com/openshift/machine-config-operator repo,
and adds swagger doc generation for it.
TODO:
/cc @runcom