Add missing metav1.ObjectMeta to NetworkPolicyEvaluation API type #6675
Conversation
This file contains 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
It seems that omitting the field was a mistake when defining the API. New versions of the K8s code generators (client-gen specifically) will not work with types missing this field. See kubernetes/code-generator@688a73a This is preventing us from updating to a more recent version of the K8s libraries and of the code generators. Note that I believe that this API was modeled after the upstream TokenReview API (which like this one only supports the "create" verb, and returns a response immediately). The TokenReview type does include a metav1.ObjectMeta field. Unfortunately, for backwards-compatibility, we need to use Protobuf field number 3 for the metadata field, while K8s always uses 1. This is a bit surprising, but it should only affect the wire format, and nothing else. Signed-off-by: Antonin Bas <antonin.bas@broadcom.com>
antoninbas
added
api-review
|
Thanks for catching this issue. LGTM except that codegen seemingly needs update |
|
Thanks! Codegen test +1 |
Signed-off-by: Antonin Bas <antonin.bas@broadcom.com>
qiyueyao
previously approved these changes
Sep 17, 2024
|
/test-all |
tnqn
reviewed
Sep 19, 2024
| Request *NetworkPolicyEvaluationRequest `json:"request,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=request"` | ||
| Response *NetworkPolicyEvaluationResponse `json:"response,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=response"` | ||
| metav1.TypeMeta `json:",inline"` | ||
| metav1.ObjectMeta `json:"metadata,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=metadata"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we add a comment inline why this is 3 to avoid it to be “corrected” by accident?
Could this be fixed when we introduce a new version for NetworkPolicyEvaluation API? I suppose yes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done.
Could this be fixed when we introduce a new version for NetworkPolicyEvaluation API? I suppose yes.
Yes I also believe that this can be fixed in a future version, without any negative impact. Protobuf message types are completely independent across versions.
Signed-off-by: Antonin Bas <antonin.bas@broadcom.com>
Signed-off-by: Antonin Bas <antonin.bas@broadcom.com>
|
/test-all |
tnqn
approved these changes
Sep 19, 2024
antoninbas
deleted the
add-missing-objectmeta-to-networkpolicyevaluation-type
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
It seems that omitting the field was a mistake when defining the API. New versions of the K8s code generators (client-gen specifically) will not work with types missing this field.
See kubernetes/code-generator@688a73a.
This is preventing us from updating to a more recent version of the K8s libraries and of the code generators.
Note that I believe that this API was modeled after the upstream TokenReview API (which like this one only supports the "create" verb, and returns a response immediately). The TokenReview type does include a metav1.ObjectMeta field.
Unfortunately, for backwards-compatibility, we need to use Protobuf field number 3 for the metadata field, while K8s always uses 1. This is a bit surprising, but it should only affect the wire format, and nothing else.