-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 300
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
Fork/uidlabel #4339
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Fork/uidlabel #4339
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: avrittrohwer 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 |
Hi @avrittrohwer. 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 Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the 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. |
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
/ok-to-test |
@@ -603,6 +603,7 @@ const ( | |||
// +kubebuilder:resource:shortName={wl} | |||
|
|||
// Workload is the Schema for the workloads API | |||
// +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:rule="self.metadata.labels['kueue.x-k8s.io/workload-uid'] == oldSelf.metadata.labels['kueue.x-k8s.io/workload-uid']", message="field is immutable" |
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.
This probably needs to be relaxed to "field is immutable once set" since this is set in workload_reconciler.
The bonus question: could it be set on workload creation with Mutating Admission Policy ( I know it is still Alpha, but we could already plan to move the setting code).
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.
Do you know how I could test out this validation rule? My current Reconcile unit test does not look like it exercises this rule
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.
Yeah, I don't think you can test it at the UT level, because it is enforced by api-server.
We cover other validation rules at the level of integration tests example
Hi. I noticed this is still marked as Draft. Is it ready for a review? |
@avrittrohwer: The following tests failed, say
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. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
/kind api-change
What this PR does / why we need it:
Makes it easy to kubectl describe the Workload that preempted another workload using the --selector CLI flag.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #4038
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?