USHIFT-3459: Passthrough kubelet config from microshift config #3522
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
|
@pmtk: This pull request references USHIFT-3459 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.17.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this: 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
pmtk
force-pushed
the
low-latency/kubelet-config-passthrough
branch
2 times, most recently
from
cb3e704
to
4c71f72
Compare
| @@ -91,6 +92,7 @@ ingress: | |||
| routeAdmissionPolicy: | |||
| namespaceOwnership: InterNamespaceAllowed | |||
| status: Managed | |||
| kubelet: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It makes sense to specify the kubelet key in the configuration example (L39), though it seems awkward to set it in the generated default config file. Ofc this is purely a manner of taste, as it wouldn't affect the processing logic one way or the other.
wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that an example would be nice, but it seems very manual process compared to what we have now. Also, current examples are showing default values, which still holds true for current kubelet:.
I don't see elegant way to do this, or a way to not confuse users, but we'll definitely explain this feature in the official docs.
WDYT, can we skip this one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you force it to have a null value? This makes it to the default config and we need to be able to load it without issues.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Empty object such as example below is a valid yaml AFAIK, is it not?
kubelet:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I double checked and kubelet: loads just fine and personally I prefer it to kubelet: null
pmtk
force-pushed
the
low-latency/kubelet-config-passthrough
branch
from
4c71f72
to
eda9e00
Compare
pmtk
force-pushed
the
low-latency/kubelet-config-passthrough
branch
from
eda9e00
to
2cc1a91
Compare
|
/hold |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
|
/unhold |
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
| @@ -91,6 +92,7 @@ ingress: | |||
| routeAdmissionPolicy: | |||
| namespaceOwnership: InterNamespaceAllowed | |||
| status: Managed | |||
| kubelet: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you force it to have a null value? This makes it to the default config and we need to be able to load it without issues.
| @@ -48,6 +48,10 @@ type Config struct { | |||
| Manifests Manifests `json:"manifests"` | |||
| Ingress IngressConfig `json:"ingress"` | |||
|
|
|||
| // Settings specified in this section are transferred as-is into the Kubelet config. | |||
| // +kubebuilder:validation:Schemaless | |||
| Kubelet map[string]any `json:"kubelet"` | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
// +kubebuilder:default=null
Given that you already have schemaless you can put whatever you want here, meaning null should work.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: pacevedom, pmtk The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
@pmtk: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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. |
No description provided.