Skip to content
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

Set default values in API rather than in webhooks #5111

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bryan-cox
Copy link
Contributor

What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:
This commit removes default values previously set in webhooks and adds the default values directly in the API through the kubebuilder annotation, kubebuilder:default.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #4204

Special notes for your reviewer:

  • cherry-pick candidate

TODOs:

  • squashed commits
  • includes documentation
  • adds unit tests

Release note:

Removes default values previously set in webhooks and adds the default values directly in the API through the kubebuilder annotation, `kubebuilder:default`.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Sep 5, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Sep 5, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @bryan-cox. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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-sigs/prow repository.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 6, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 52.47%. Comparing base (fa94869) to head (b659359).
Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5111      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   51.35%   52.47%   +1.11%     
==========================================
  Files         273      273              
  Lines       24670    29087    +4417     
==========================================
+ Hits        12670    15264    +2594     
- Misses      11211    13033    +1822     
- Partials      789      790       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nojnhuh @jackfrancis - do we want to continue with this PR? If so, could I get an ok to test this please?

@mboersma
Copy link
Contributor

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Sep 26, 2024
@bryan-cox
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Contributor Author

For pull-cluster-api-provider-azure-e2e-aks

Expected success, but got an error:
    <errors.aggregate | len:1, cap:1>: 
    admission webhook "validation.azuremanagedcontrolplanes.infrastructure.cluster.x-k8s.io" denied the request: [spec.virtualNetwork.CIDRBlock: Invalid value: "": pre-existing virtual networks CIDR block is invalid, spec.virtualNetwork.Subnet.CIDRBlock: Invalid value: "": pre-existing subnets CIDR block is invalid]
    [

Not sure how these would be empty when they are defaulted here and here.

Does the e2e use any API changes from the PR?

@@ -90,11 +87,8 @@ func (m *AzureManagedControlPlane) setDefaultSubnet() {
if m.Spec.VirtualNetwork.Subnet.Name == "" {
m.Spec.VirtualNetwork.Subnet.Name = m.Name
}
if m.Spec.VirtualNetwork.Subnet.CIDRBlock == "" {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For pull-cluster-api-provider-azure-e2e-aks

Expected success, but got an error:
    <errors.aggregate | len:1, cap:1>: 
    admission webhook "validation.azuremanagedcontrolplanes.infrastructure.cluster.x-k8s.io" denied the request: [spec.virtualNetwork.CIDRBlock: Invalid value: "": pre-existing virtual networks CIDR block is invalid, spec.virtualNetwork.Subnet.CIDRBlock: Invalid value: "": pre-existing subnets CIDR block is invalid]
    [

Not sure how these would be empty when they are defaulted here and here.

Does the e2e use any API changes from the PR?

Webhooks are 100% invoked by the e2e tests. I'm not exactly sure why this specific error is cropping up, but the logic around here seems non-trivial so I'd be okay to omit the CIDR block changes from this PR. My main idea with #4204 was to pick off the low-hanging fruit.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok sounds good. I'll put those back.

Copy link
Contributor

@nojnhuh nojnhuh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Loving all the red in this diff so far!

api/v1beta1/types.go Show resolved Hide resolved
api/v1beta1/azuremanagedcontrolplane_default.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines -176 to -177
// Default is the same as the ScanInterval so default to that same value if it isn't set
result.ScaleDownDelayAfterDelete = result.ScanInterval
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this can be expressed in the kubebuilder annotations, so maybe best to keep just this field here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't setting this to the same default value in the kubebuilder annotations accomplishing the same purpose here though? It's just a default value if the value isn't set, which what was happening here before.

Name string `json:"name"`
Name string `json:"name"`

// +kubebuilder:default:="10.240.0.0/16"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The logic we had for this already seems necessary, so I don't think it buys us anything to include this kubebuilder annotation.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Happy to remove it but does it hurt anything to include the default here?

@@ -419,6 +422,7 @@ type AzureManagedMachinePoolClassSpec struct {

// ManagedControlPlaneVirtualNetworkClassSpec defines the ManagedControlPlaneVirtualNetwork properties that may be shared across several managed control plane vnets.
type ManagedControlPlaneVirtualNetworkClassSpec struct {
// +kubebuilder:default:="10.0.0.0/8"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same as the other CIDR block comment above.

This commit removes default values previously set in webhooks and adds
the default values directly in the API through the kubebuilder
annotation, `kubebuilder:default`.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Cox <[email protected]>
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign nojnhuh for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@nojnhuh
Copy link
Contributor

nojnhuh commented Nov 7, 2024

I'll get back to this as soon as I can.

/assign

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-azure-e2e-aks

@nawazkh nawazkh added this to the v1.18 milestone Nov 7, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@bryan-cox: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
pull-cluster-api-provider-azure-apidiff 157f495 link false /test pull-cluster-api-provider-azure-apidiff
pull-cluster-api-provider-azure-e2e-aks 157f495 link true /test pull-cluster-api-provider-azure-e2e-aks

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@dtzar dtzar modified the milestones: v1.18, next Nov 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Use // +kubebuilder:default annotations where possible
7 participants