Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add tests for semantically equal DaemonSet updates
Tests for #43337, depends on #43337. The last commit is already reviewed in #43337.
@liggitt @kargakis @lukaszo @kubernetes/sig-apps-pr-reviews
Because there is no field in 1.5, when we update to 1.6 and the
controller tries to update the Deployment, it will be denied by
validation because the pre-existing availableReplicas field is greater
than readyReplicas (normally readyReplicas should always be greater or
equal).
1. Validate that templateGeneration is increased when and only when template is changed
2. Validate that templateGeneration is never decreased
3. Added validation tests for templateGeneration
4. Fix a bunch of errors in validate tests, for example, all validation test error cases failed
on lack of resource version, or on name changes, not on the real validation we wanted to test
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 40497, 39769, 40554, 40569, 40597)
NetworkPolicy validation improvements
I noticed while implementing NetworkPolicy that I we weren't validating the "Ports" field at all.
The docs are actually completely silent about what a string-valued Port field is supposed to mean. I had guessed it meant to call `net.LookupPort()` on it (ie, map it from /etc/services) but in every other case where we have an IntOrString-valued Port field in an API struct, it refers to a named ContainerPort. But that would be extremely awkward to implement in this case; a policy specifying a named port could end up mapping to a different numeric port on every container in the namespace... Do other people actually implement string-valued ports that way? Or, for that matter, implement string-valued ports at all? (Related: I hadn't noticed until now that you can leave the Port value unspecified, allowing you to say "allow to all UDP ports, but no TCP ports" or "allow to all TCP ports, but no UDP ports". That seems like something that ended up in the spec just because it was possible, not because it was actually useful...)
@kubernetes/sig-network-misc
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38920, 38090)
Improve error message for name/label validation.
Instead of just providing regex in name/label validation error output, we need to add the naming rules of the name/label, which is more end-user readable.
Fixed#37654
In podSecurityPolicy:
1. Rename .seLinuxContext to .seLinux
2. Rename .seLinux.type to .seLinux.rule
3. Rename .runAsUser.type to .runAsUser.rule
4. Rename .seLinux.SELinuxOptions
1,2,3 as suggested by thockin in #22159.
I added 3 for consistency with 2.
Added selector generation to Job's
strategy.Validate, right before validation.
Can't do in defaulting since UID is not known.
Added a validation to Job to ensure that the generated
labels and selector are correct when generation was requested.
This happens right after generation, but validation is in a better
place to return an error.
Adds "manualSelector" field to batch/v1 Job to control selector generation.
Adds same field to extensions/__internal. Conversion between those two
is automatic.
Adds "autoSelector" field to extensions/v1beta1 Job. Used for storing batch/v1 Jobs
- Default for v1 is to do generation.
- Default for v1beta1 is to not do it.
- In both cases, unset == false == do the default thing.
Release notes:
Added batch/v1 group, which contains just Job, and which is the next
version of extensions/v1beta1 Job.
The changes from the previous version are:
- Users no longer need to ensure labels on their pod template are unique to the enclosing
job (but may add labels as needed for categorization).
- In v1beta1, job.spec.selector was defaulted from pod labels, with the user responsible for uniqueness.
In v1, a unique label is generated and added to the pod template, and used as the selector (other
labels added by user stay on pod template, but need not be used by selector).
- a new field called "manualSelector" field exists to control whether the new behavior is used,
versus a more error-prone but more flexible "manual" (not generated) seletor. Most users
will not need to use this field and should leave it unset.
Users who are creating extensions.Job go objects and then posting them using the go client
will see a change in the default behavior. They need to either stop providing a selector (relying on
selector generation) or else specify "spec.manualSelector" until they are ready to do the former.
