Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38049, 37823, 38000, 36646)
Test 0-length-arrays in fuzzing tests
While hacking on #37289 I noticed that our fuzzing tests test nil slices and slices of length 1, but not slices of length 0, meaning we aren't testing that 0-length slices get treated the same as nil in all the places we expect them to (and in particular, we aren't ensuring that comparisons always use api.Semantic.DeepEqual rather than reflect.DeepEqual). (Though in fact, changing the fuzzer didn't turn up any bugs, so maybe this effectively gets tested somewhere else...)
`fuzz.New().NilChance(.5).NumElements(0, 1)` means we end up generating `nil` 50% of the time, a length 0 array 25% of the time, and a length 1 array 25% of the time... maybe it should be `fuzz.New().NilChance(.33).NumElements(0, 1)` instead?
The gofuzz rebase is to pull in https://github.com/google/gofuzz/pull/20, and the other fix is just a drive-by.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 35300, 36709, 37643, 37813, 37697)
Add generated informers
Add informer-gen and the informers it generates. We'll do follow-up PRs to convert everything currently using the hand-written informers to the generated ones.
TODO:
- [x] switch to `GroupVersionResource`
- [x] finish godoc
@deads2k @caesarxuchao @sttts @liggitt
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 37608, 37103, 37320, 37607, 37678)
Remove stray quote from API docs
There was a PR that removed backquote from the line recently, but there's also extra quote.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Remove ExportOptions from api/internal and use unversioned
Should only have one internal object in use
Part of #37530
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Make pvc storage class annotation immutable after create
Fixes#34516
Added immutable check in validation.go
```
# Please edit the object below. Lines beginning with a '#' will be ignored,
# and an empty file will abort the edit. If an error occurs while saving this file will be
# reopened with the relevant failures.
#
# persistentvolumeclaims "gce-claim-storageclass" was not valid:
# * metadata.annotations.volume.beta.kubernetes.io/storage-class: Invalid value: "slow2": field is immutable
#
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Fix logic error in graceful deletion
If a resource has the following criteria:
1. deletion timestamp is not nil
2. deletion graceperiod seconds as persisted in storage is 0
the resource could never be deleted as we always returned pending graceful.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Improved validation error message when env.valueFrom contains no (or …
<!-- Thanks for sending a pull request! Here are some tips for you:
1. If this is your first time, read our contributor guidelines https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md and developer guide https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/devel/development.md
2. If you want *faster* PR reviews, read how: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/devel/faster_reviews.md
3. Follow the instructions for writing a release note: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/devel/pull-requests.md#release-notes
-->
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
A misleading error message is shown if the user mistypes (or forgets to specify) a field under env.valueFrom. This is the error message: "may not have more than one field specified at a time". But there is only one (misspelled) field specified.
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
<!-- Steps to write your release note:
1. Use the release-note-* labels to set the release note state (if you have access)
2. Enter your extended release note in the below block; leaving it blank means using the PR title as the release note. If no release note is required, just write `NONE`.
-->
```
Improved error message for missing/misspelled field under env.valueFrom
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/api
cc @lavalamp @smarterclayton @erictune @thockin @bgrant0607
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add tests for deepcopy of structs
Until https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35728 merges, we want to at least fuzz/test that deepcopy isn't shallow-copying problematic fields
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Fix kubectl drain for statefulset
Support deleting pets for `kubectl drain`.
Use evict to delete pods.
Fixes: #33727
```release-note
Adds support for StatefulSets in kubectl drain.
Switches to use the eviction sub-resource instead of deletion in kubectl drain, if server supports.
```
@foxish @caesarxuchao
Automatic merge from submit-queue
copy PodInitialized condition to v1
Copied from pkg/api/types.go
I might batch this change with other similar changes, but want to gets this reviewed first.
cc @dchen1107 @yujuhong
Automatic merge from submit-queue
[RFC] Prepare for deprecating NodeLegacyHostIP
Ref https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/9267#issuecomment-257994766
*What this PR does*
- Add comments saying "LegacyHostIP" will be deprecated in 1.7;
- Add v1.NodeLegacyHostIP to be consistent with the internal API (useful for client-go migration #35159)
- Let cloudproviders who used to only set LegacyHostIP set the IP as both InternalIP and ExternalIP
- Master used to ssh tunnel to node's ExternalIP or LegacyHostIP to do [healthz check](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blame/master/pkg/master/master.go#L328-L332). OTOH, if on-prem, kubelet only [sets](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/pkg/kubelet/kubelet_node_status.go#L430-L431) LegacyHostIP or InternalIP. In order to deprecate LegacyHostIP in 1.7, I let healthz check to use InternalIP if ExternalIP is not available. (The healthz check is the only consumer of LegacyHostIP in k8s.)
@liggitt @justinsb @bgrant0607
```release-note
LegacyHostIP will be deprecated in 1.7.
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
SetSelfLink is inefficient
Generating self links, especially for lists, is inefficient. Replace
use of net.URL.String() call with direct encoding that reduces number of
allocations. Switch from calling meta.ExtractList|SetList to a function
that iterates over each object in the list.
In steady state for nodes performing frequently small get/list
operations, and for larger LISTs significantly reduces CPU and
allocations.
@wojtek-t this is the next big chunk of CPU use during the large N nodes simulation test (11% of master CPU). Takes a few allocations out of the critical path
Automatic merge from submit-queue
We only report diskpressure to users, and no longer report inodepressure
See #36180 for more information on why #33218 was reverted.
