Automatic merge from submit-queue
genericapiserver: cut off pkg/serviceaccount dependency
**Blocked** by pkg/api/validation/genericvalidation to be split up and moved into apimachinery.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39948, 39997)
Fix ScheduledJob -> CronJob rename leftovers
I found a few leftovers from the rename I did some time ago.
@kubernetes/sig-apps-misc ptal
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Move pkg/api/rest into genericapiserver
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
**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**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Do not list CronJob unmet starting times beyond deadline
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
See #36311. `getRecentUnmetScheduleTimes` gives up after 100 unmet times to avoid wasting too much CPU or memory generating all the times, as it generates them sequentially.
When concurrency is forbidden, this is conceptually un-necessary: we only need the last unmet start time. This suggests that when concurrency is forbidden, we could generate times by going backward in time from now. This is not very practical as CronJob currently relies on a package that only provides `Next` and no `Prev`. Hand-cooking a `Prev` does not seem like a good idea. I could submit a PR to the cron library to add a `Prev` method, and use that when concurrency is forbidden through something like `getLastUnmetScheduleTime`. This would be `O(1)` and there would be no limit involved.
(edit: actually, even for the other concurrency settings, we only start the last unmet start times -- there is a `TODO` in the controller to actually start all of them, but that is not implemented at the moment. This means the solution would apply, at least temporarily, to all concurrency settings).
cc @soltysh what do you think?
In the meantime, I would suggest to do something simple. Currently, the user has no way to configure anything to ensure that his CronJob will not get stuck if one job takes more that 100 unmet times.
`getRecentUnmetScheduleTimes` starts with an initial time corresponding to the last start (or to the creation of the CronJob, if nothing has started yet). However, when `StartingDeadlineSeconds` is set, the controller will not start anything that is older than the deadline, so if the last start is way beyond the deadline, we are generating potentially lots of unmet start times that will not be considered by the scheduler for scheduling anyway.
Consider a job running every minute, where the last instance has taken 120 minutes. This means there are more than 100 unmet times when we start counting from the last start time.
**The PR makes `getRecentUnmetScheduleTimes` only consider times that do not fall beyond the deadline.** Here, the CronJob can be configured with a `StartingDeadlineSeconds` of, say, 10 minutes. After the 120min job has run, `getRecentUnmetScheduleTimes` will only consider the times in the last 10 minutes from now, and will not get stuck.
As a side note on the max. number of unmet times to use as limits in terms of CPU used by the controller: I have run a quick benchmark on my i7 mac. Schedules corresponding to "once a week" tend to be more expensive to generate unmet times for. Just FYI.
```
+--------------+---------------+--------------+
| SCHEDULE | MISSED STARTS | TIMING |
+--------------+---------------+--------------+
| */1 * * * ? | 100 | 383.645µs |
| */30 * * * ? | 100 | 354.765µs |
| 30 1 * * ? | 100 | 1.065124ms |
| 30 1 * * 0 | 100 | 1.80034ms |
| */1 * * * ? | 500 | 1.341365ms |
| */30 * * * ? | 500 | 1.814441ms |
| 30 1 * * ? | 500 | 8.475012ms |
| 30 1 * * 0 | 500 | 10.020613ms |
| */1 * * * ? | 1000 | 2.551697ms |
| */30 * * * ? | 1000 | 4.075813ms |
| 30 1 * * ? | 1000 | 17.674945ms |
| 30 1 * * 0 | 1000 | 19.149324ms |
| */1 * * * ? | 10000 | 25.725531ms |
| */30 * * * ? | 10000 | 87.520022ms |
| 30 1 * * ? | 10000 | 174.29216ms |
| 30 1 * * 0 | 10000 | 196.565748ms |
+--------------+---------------+--------------+
```
using
```.go
package main
import (
"fmt"
"time"
"os"
"strconv"
"github.com/robfig/cron"
"github.com/olekukonko/tablewriter"
)
func timeSchedule(schedule string, iterations int) (time.Duration) {
sched, err := cron.ParseStandard(schedule)
if err != nil {
panic(fmt.Sprintf("Unparseable schedule: %s", err))
}
start := time.Now()
t := time.Now()
for i := 1; i <= iterations; i++ {
t = sched.Next(t)
}
return time.Since(start)
}
func main() {
table := tablewriter.NewWriter(os.Stdout)
table.SetHeader([]string{"Schedule", "Missed starts", "Timing"})
schedules := []string{"*/1 * * * ?", "*/30 * * * ?", "30 1 * * ?", "30 1 * * 0"}
iteration_nums := []int{100, 500, 1000, 10000}
for _, iterations := range iteration_nums {
for _, schedule := range schedules {
table.Append([]string{schedule,
strconv.Itoa(iterations),
timeSchedule(schedule, iterations).String()})
}
}
table.Render()
}
```
**Which issue this PR fixes**: fixes#36311
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Report the Pod name and namespace when kubelet fails to sync the container
This helps debugging problems with SELinux (and other problems related to the Docker failed to run the container) as currently only the UUID of the Pod is reported:
```
Error syncing pod 670f607d-b5a8-11a4-b673-005056b7468b, skipping: failed to "StartContainer" for "deployment" with RunContainerError: "runContainer: Error response from daemon: Relabeling content in /usr is not allowed."
```
Here it would be useful to know what pod in which namespace is trying to mount the "/usr".
Automatic merge from submit-queue
move name generation to generic api server storage helpers
Move name generation to the genericapiserver since only the server needs to know about it.
@kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-misc @sttts
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39806, 39887, 39401)
refactor delete to remove cobra dependency
FYI. As part of CLI Q1 roadmap, we would like to reduce the dependency of Cobra from actual commands implementations. In this PR, I tried to refactor delete command to achieve this. @kubernetes/sig-cli-misc a quick review is quite welcome, and I am just working on more PRs.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39806, 39887, 39401)
export list of user resources
This patch exports the list of "userResources" found in
`pkg/kubectl/cmd/util/shortcut_resmapper.go` to allow its use in
external packages and clients.
Related downstream PR: https://github.com/openshift/origin/pull/12147
**Release note**:
```release-note
release-note-none
```
cc @deads2k
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38592, 39949, 39946, 39882)
move api/errors to apimachinery
`pkg/api/errors` is a set of helpers around `meta/v1.Status` that help to create and interpret various apiserver errors. Things like `.NewNotFound` and `IsNotFound` pairings. This pull moves it into apimachinery for use by the clients and servers.
@smarterclayton @lavalamp First commit is the move plus minor fitting. Second commit is straight replace and generation.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38592, 39949, 39946, 39882)
genericapiserver: cut off pkg/apis/extensions and pkg/storage dependencies
Move BuildDefaultStorageFactory to kubeapiserver.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38592, 39949, 39946, 39882)
Add optional per-request context to restclient
**What this PR does / why we need it**: It adds per-request contexts to restclient's API, and uses them to add timeouts to all proxy calls in the e2e tests. An entire e2e shouldn't hang for hours on a single API call.
**Which issue this PR fixes**: #38305
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
This adds a feature to the low-level rest client request feature that is entirely optional. It doesn't affect any requests that don't use it. The api of the generated clients does not change, and they currently don't take advantage of this.
I intend to patch this in to 1.5 as a mostly test only change since it's not going to affect any controller, generated client, or user of the generated client.
cc @kubernetes/sig-api-machinery
cc @saad-ali
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39947, 39936, 39902, 39859, 39915)
Make api serialization test easier to follow
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
This PR makes the serialization test easier to understand and is informed by the recent experience of writing a new serialization test in SIG service catalog.
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39417, 39679)
Fix 2 `sucessfully` typos
**What this PR does / why we need it**: Only fixes two typos in comments/logging
**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**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Don't blame DNS spec on Kubernetes requirement for lower-case DNS labels.
**What this PR does / why we need it**: #39635 was rejected because it wasn't clear to the author (me) that lower-case DNS labels are in fact a [Kubernetes requirement](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/39635#issuecomment-271404975) rather than from the [DNS RFC 1035](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt) or/and [DNS RFC 1123](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1123.txt).
**Special notes for your reviewer**: @thockin this is a first pass to make the error messages clearer about the fact that DNS specs are not to _blame_.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Updated unit tests
@janetkuo updated the flaky unit test to have the same structure with regard to uncasting as the rest of the tests. ptal
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/conversion
cc @lavalamp @smarterclayton @wojtek-t @derekwaynecarr
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
Only set empty list for list types
If List() impls return non-list objects (like Status objects), we shouldn't try to set them to an empty list
follow up to #39834
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/master
cc @lavalamp @nikhiljindal @mikedanese @derekwaynecarr
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
Curating Owners: pkg/storage
cc @lavalamp @timothysc @liggitt @xiang90 @wojtek-t
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)
