Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 41246, 39998)
Cinder volume attacher: use instanceID instead of NodeID when verifying attachment
**What this PR does / why we need it**: Cinder volume attacher incorrectly uses NodeID instead of openstack instance id, so that reconciliation fails.
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes#39978
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add gnufied as reviewer for aws and gce volumes
Adding myself as reviewer for aws and gce volume plugins. I understand the code well enough and have helped with review in those areas already.
cc @childsb @justinsb @saad-ali
This fix prevents the PV controller from forcefully overwriting the provisioned volume's name with the generated PV name. Instead, it allows dynamic provisioner implementers to set the name of the volume to a value that they choose.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38772, 38797, 40732, 40740)
Synchronous spellcheck for pkg/volume/*
**What this PR does / why we need it**: Increase code readability
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #
**Special notes for your reviewer**: Minor contribution
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 40299, 40311)
move authoritative client-go util out of pkg
Move `client-go/pkg/util` which are authoritative to `client-go/util` to make it easier to reason about what comes from where.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Adding rescan scsi controller for cinder
For lsilogic scsi controller, attached cinder volume does not
appear under /dev/ automatically unless do a rescan.
This approach was used in vSphere volume provider before PR #27496
dropped support for lsilogic scsi controller.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Optional configmaps and secrets
Allow configmaps and secrets for environment variables and volume sources to be optional
Implements approved proposal c9f881b7bb
Release note:
```release-note
Volumes and environment variables populated from ConfigMap and Secret objects can now tolerate the named source object or specific keys being missing, by adding `optional: true` to the volume or environment variable source specifications.
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 37228, 40146, 40075, 38789, 40189)
Cleanup temp dirs
So funny story my /tmp ran out of space running the unit tests so I am cleaning up all the temp dirs we create.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39826, 40030)
azure disk: restrict length of name
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Fixes dynamic disk provisioning on Azure by properly truncating the disk name to conform to the Azure API spec.
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #
n/a
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
n/a
**Release note**:
```release-note
azure disk: restrict name length for Azure specifications
```
cc: @rootfs
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/volume
cc @jsafrane @spothanis @agonzalezro @justinsb @johscheuer @simonswine @nelcy @pmorie @quofelix @sdminonne @thockin @saad-ali @rootfs
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)
