AppWrappers with same name with generic items that also have the same name but are deployed in different namespaces fail

[metalcycling]

This is a very obscure bug, and potentially not worth fixing. The issue can be replicated with the following code. The only difference between the two AppWrappers is the fact that one is deployed to namespace-1 and the other to namespace-2, everything else is the same, including the names for the AppWrappers and the generic items. This deployment fails for one of the AppWrappers as MCAD thinks there is already a dispatched AppWrapper but its generic items are non existent in its corresponding namespace. Changing the names of either the AppWrapper or the generic items fixes the issue. It is very unlikely anyone would have the exact same names across two namespaces, so no need to worry about this for now.

apiVersion: mcad.ibm.com/v1beta1
kind: AppWrapper
metadata:
    namespace: namespace-1
    name: my-aw
spec:
    resources:
        GenericItems:
            - replicas: 1
              custompodresources:
              - replicas: 1
                requests:
                    cpu: 500m
                    nvidia.com/gpu: 0
                    memory: 500Mi
                limits:
                    cpu: 500m
                    nvidia.com/gpu: 0
                    memory: 500Mi
              generictemplate:
                  apiVersion: v1
                  kind: Pod
                  metadata:
                      namespace: namespace-1
                      name: my-pod
                  spec:
                      containers:
                          - name: my-pod
                            image: ubuntu:latest
                            imagePullPolicy: IfNotPresent
                            command:
                                - sh
                                - -c
                                - |
                                  sleep infinity
                            resources:
                                requests:
                                    cpu: 500m
                                    nvidia.com/gpu: 0
                                    memory: 500Mi
                                limits:
                                    cpu: 500m
                                    nvidia.com/gpu: 0
                                    memory: 500Mi
---
apiVersion: mcad.ibm.com/v1beta1
kind: AppWrapper
metadata:
    namespace: namespace-2
    name: my-aw
spec:
    resources:
        GenericItems:
            - replicas: 1
              custompodresources:
              - replicas: 1
                requests:
                    cpu: 500m
                    nvidia.com/gpu: 0
                    memory: 500Mi
                limits:
                    cpu: 500m
                    nvidia.com/gpu: 0
                    memory: 500Mi
              generictemplate:
                  apiVersion: v1
                  kind: Pod
                  metadata:
                      namespace: namespace-2
                      name: my-pod
                  spec:
                      containers:
                          - name: my-pod
                            image: ubuntu:latest
                            imagePullPolicy: IfNotPresent
                            command:
                                - sh
                                - -c
                                - |
                                  sleep infinity
                            resources:
                                requests:
                                    cpu: 500m
                                    nvidia.com/gpu: 0
                                    memory: 500Mi
                                limits:
                                    cpu: 500m
                                    nvidia.com/gpu: 0
                                    memory: 500Mi

[asm582]

May be this is an anti-pattern, users in one namespace submit AW to another namespace

[metalcycling]

Well, I'm thinking the case where a user has access to two namespaces and decides to submit the exact same job to both of them, for some reason. Then it would fail. But that may be a very very unlikely scenario.

[z103cb]

I think this valid use case and we should support it. I think is a real issue that needs to be addressed. We should also add a validation that says that the namespace of the app wrapper should be the same as the name in the generic item. IMHO, mismatched namespaces is the only invalid uses case.