-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
🐛 Fix validation of worker topology names in Cluster resource #12069
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
Open
dlipovetsky
wants to merge
8
commits into
kubernetes-sigs:main
Choose a base branch
from
dlipovetsky:validate-worker-topology-names
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+252
−6
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
242cebd
Add tests that fail when a worker topology name causes invalid Kubern…
dlipovetsky 0079c98
Add validation that ensures worker topology names are valid Kubernete…
dlipovetsky efe9687
fixup! Add validation that ensures worker topology names are valid Ku…
dlipovetsky fbc09ec
fixup! Add validation that ensures worker topology names are valid Ku…
dlipovetsky 2a930cc
fixup! Add tests that fail when a worker topology name causes invalid…
dlipovetsky 70beeda
fixup! Add tests that fail when a worker topology name causes invalid…
dlipovetsky c206457
fixup! Add validation that ensures worker topology names are valid Ku…
dlipovetsky 2ad7c26
fixup! Add tests that fail when a worker topology name causes invalid…
dlipovetsky File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
@JoelSpeed @sbueringer wondering if we should move (or duplicate) those validation on the API as a CRD markers
cluster-api/api/core/v1beta2/cluster_types.go
Line 694 in 7a22509
cluster-api/api/core/v1beta2/cluster_types.go
Line 808 in 7a22509
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.
I have to read through this thread first for context: #12069 (comment)
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.
Since we were already had some validation for this field in code, and I could add a failing unit test to demonstrate the problem, I decided to modify the code.
However, I think we can express this validation in our API.
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.
cluster-api/api/ipam/v1beta2/ipaddress_types.go
Lines 52 to 57 in d1ed8dc
Is an example of the same validation in openapi, personally I prefer CEL matching rules here as we can provide better validation feedback, but I believe we skipped on that for the moment because the errors returned were not including the invalid value
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.
I'll wait for @sbueringer to add his thoghts.
I'm fine with CEL, code, or both for now, and removing code in the future. Just let me know what you'd like, so we can finish up here 😄
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
We skipped on CEL at the moment because based on Joel this would require a minimum v1.33 Kubernetes version on the mgmt cluster: #12235 (comment) :)
I'm tracking this here: #8190 (not sure if actually v1.33 or v1.34 because of the compatibility version thing in Kubernetes that ensures apiserver minor version rollbacks are possible).
We already have a Pattern on e.g. topology.classRef.name (on main: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/blob/main/api/core/v1beta2/cluster_types.go#L578). So it would be nice for consistency to do the same here.
The downsides of having this in OpenAPI are that we have to move the test coverage to envtest but maybe let's just do that. We have to do it sooner or later with CEL anyway. fyi, we already have tests like this in
internal/webhooks/test
, we can just add the new ones there as well.If I understand correctly the combination of the
IsDNS1123Subdomain
pattern + MaxLength=63 makes the IsValidLabelValue validation redundant and we could just drop the code from the webhook? (and move test cases for that over to envtest as well)P.S. Sorry for the delay
P.S.2 Let's please rebase onto main. Just easier to look at everything in its latest state
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.
I had also reached this conclusion
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
(Daniel also mentioned it explicitly in his godoc comment :))