k8s: Bump k8s libraries to v0.30.0 #11840

RamLavi · 2024-05-02T12:32:56Z

What this PR does

This PR bumps k8s vendor to v0.30.0 on go.mod files.
It also performs needed changes in order to comply with the new vendor libraries.

Note: This PR follows the update-k8s-dependencies. manual.

Fixes #

Why we need it and why it was done in this way

The following tradeoffs were made:

The following alternatives were considered:

Links to places where the discussion took place:

Special notes for your reviewer

Checklist

This checklist is not enforcing, but it's a reminder of items that could be relevant to every PR.
Approvers are expected to review this list.

Design: A design document was considered and is present (link) or not required
PR: The PR description is expressive enough and will help future contributors
Code: Write code that humans can understand and Keep it simple
Refactor: You have left the code cleaner than you found it (Boy Scout Rule)
Upgrade: Impact of this change on upgrade flows was considered and addressed if required
Testing: New code requires new unit tests. New features and bug fixes require at least on e2e test
Documentation: A user-guide update was considered and is present (link) or not required. You want a user-guide update if it's a user facing feature / API change.
Community: Announcement to kubevirt-dev was considered

Release note

Bump k8s deps to 0.30.0

xpivarc · 2024-05-02T13:08:14Z

pkg/virt-api/api.go

@@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ func (app *virtAPIApp) Compose() {
 }

 func (app *virtAPIApp) ConfigureOpenAPIService() {
-	config := openapi.CreateConfig()
+	config := openapi.CreateV3Config()


Why is this needed?

At the time it looks like it was necessary but on second look I think it can be removed. DONE

xpivarc · 2024-05-02T13:09:08Z

pkg/virt-controller/leaderelectionconfig/config.go

@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ func DefaultLeaderElectionConfiguration() Configuration {
 		LeaseDuration: metav1.Duration{Duration: DefaultLeaseDuration},
 		RenewDeadline: metav1.Duration{Duration: DefaultRenewDeadline},
 		RetryPeriod:   metav1.Duration{Duration: DefaultRetryPeriod},
-		ResourceLock:  resourcelock.EndpointsLeasesResourceLock,
+		ResourceLock:  resourcelock.LeasesResourceLock,


See here. Looks like that EndpointsLeasesResourceLock is deprecated.

But for some reason the virt-controller endpoint is gone... trying to figure out why

Well evidently this change made it so that the leader info is kept on the lease.
Fixed accordingly.
Added a comment on the commit desc.

xpivarc · 2024-05-02T13:10:53Z

staging/src/kubevirt.io/client-go/go.mod

@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
 module kubevirt.io/client-go

-go 1.21
+go 1.22.0


I think I saw a runtime log saying that it needed it.. will try to remove it back and see if I get it again.

go: module ./staging/src/kubevirt.io/client-go requires go >= 1.22.0; switching to go1.22.2

Added a comment on the commit desc.

oshoval · 2024-05-02T13:20:04Z

api/openapi-spec/swagger.json

-       "description": "A selector to restrict the list of returned objects by their fields. Defaults to everything.",
-       "name": "fieldSelector",
-       "in": "query"
+       "$ref": "#/parameters/fieldSelector-xIcQKXFG"


swagger seems wrong

hmm, sure looks odd. I counted about 19 of these. make apidoc passes. still checking..

I tend to think it's OK. See here .
When I look at the output with the IDE, I don't see an issue though admittedly I am no expert.
@oshoval - WDYT? Does the output look OK to you now?

If IDE parse it then it sounds good
I am not familiar with it, better to ask someone who does
thanks

RamLavi · 2024-05-07T04:29:52Z

/retest-required

jean-edouard

/approve

kubevirt-bot · 2024-05-07T12:36:05Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jean-edouard

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:

~~OWNERS~~ [jean-edouard]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

kubevirt-commenter-bot · 2024-05-20T09:54:57Z

Required labels detected, running phase 2 presubmits:
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-windows2016
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-kind-sriov
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.30-ipv6-sig-network
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.28-sig-network
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.28-sig-storage
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.28-sig-compute
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.28-sig-operator
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.29-sig-network
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.29-sig-storage
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.29-sig-compute
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.29-sig-operator

RamLavi · 2024-05-20T10:06:21Z

/test pull-kubevirt-unit-test
passes locally, could be flake

kubevirt-commenter-bot · 2024-05-21T00:43:47Z

/retest-required
This bot automatically retries required jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs.
Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

kubevirt-commenter-bot · 2024-05-21T04:43:47Z

/retest-required
This bot automatically retries required jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs.
Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

akrejcir · 2024-05-21T10:51:57Z

This will make it more convenient to import client-go in other projects, thanks.

A question out of curiosity: Is it ok to make kubevirt depend on k8s 1.30, when CI still runs on 1.28 and 1.29? I assumed that we support these older versions. Is the k8s.io code backward compatible?

brianmcarey · 2024-05-21T11:54:10Z

@RamLavi - there looks to be an issue with the sig-monitoring lane on this PR. https://prow.ci.kubevirt.io/pr-history/?org=kubevirt&repo=kubevirt&pr=11840

kubevirt-commenter-bot · 2024-05-21T14:44:40Z

/retest-required
This bot automatically retries required jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs.
Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

RamLavi · 2024-05-21T18:05:04Z

@RamLavi - there looks to be an issue with the sig-monitoring lane on this PR. https://prow.ci.kubevirt.io/pr-history/?org=kubevirt&repo=kubevirt&pr=11840

Lemme take a look
/hold

fossedihelm · 2024-05-22T05:56:06Z

This can fix it: #11950

RamLavi · 2024-05-22T10:44:20Z

This will make it more convenient to import client-go in other projects, thanks.

A question out of curiosity: Is it ok to make kubevirt depend on k8s 1.30, when CI still runs on 1.28 and 1.29? I assumed that we support these older versions. Is the k8s.io code backward compatible?

I don't think it's a problem, as long as we make sure to use GAed features and resources, then k8s should be backwards compatible.
Regardless, when inserting a new feature on kubevirt, one needs to make sure they take into account kubevirt's three k8s version stability constraint. This is why we have lanes to check this is true.

oshoval · 2024-05-22T10:50:47Z

some cosmetics nits here that can be done for leader election change (your change is right, just some var name changes if you want to take a look please)
f6eaf62

Following manual [0] updating k8s vendor on all relevant go.mod files. Additional to the normal vendor bumping, the following changes were made to the code: - go.mod's go version changed to go 1.22.0 (automatically by deps-update) - Changed PersistentVolumeClaimSpec's Resources field to be of type VolumeResourceRequirements [1]. - DefaultLeaderElectionConfigurations ResourceLock in leader election config was changed to LeasesResourceLock [2]. Accordingly, the leader pod is now taken from the lease object. - Currently builderv3 is used to create the spec for routes. Since the spec is different now - moving to use v1. - Move from deprecated PollImmediate. [0] https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/blob/main/docs/update-k8s-dependencies.md [1] https://www.pulumi.com/registry/packages/kubernetes/api-docs/core/v1/persistentvolumeclaim/#resources_nodejs [2] https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/blob/76bf9b2675954499165bc35ba12c8f9c9f45bc01/pkg/virt-controller/leaderelectionconfig/config.go#L37 Signed-off-by: Ram Lavi <ralavi@redhat.com>

RamLavi · 2024-05-27T08:13:33Z

Change: Rebase

fossedihelm · 2024-05-28T06:22:27Z

/lgtm

kubevirt-commenter-bot · 2024-05-28T06:22:33Z

Required labels detected, running phase 2 presubmits:
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-windows2016
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-kind-sriov
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.30-ipv6-sig-network
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.28-sig-network
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.28-sig-storage
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.28-sig-compute
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.28-sig-operator
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.29-sig-network
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.29-sig-storage
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.29-sig-compute
/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.29-sig-operator

oshoval · 2024-05-28T12:48:14Z

if the failures are not related please consider unhold

RamLavi · 2024-05-29T08:06:59Z

if the failures are not related please consider unhold

I don't think they're related, I see very similar tests fail on other PRs (like #11516, see failing here)

/hold cancel

brianmcarey · 2024-05-29T08:13:17Z

Looking at the PR history here - it looks like this will be very unlikely to merge until #11950 is merged.

https://prow.ci.kubevirt.io/pr-history/?org=kubevirt&repo=kubevirt&pr=11840

The hold should probably stay in place until #11950 is merged or we decide to override the monitoring lane here?

oshoval · 2024-05-29T08:15:33Z

but if you override, wont this flake affect everything once this PR is merged?
otherwise sgtm

RamLavi · 2024-05-29T08:40:49Z

/hold
I may need to bump to v0.30.1

kubevirt-bot · 2024-05-29T09:33:01Z

@RamLavi: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-kubevirt-e2e-kind-1.27-vgpu	`f87f7cc`	link	false	`/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-kind-1.27-vgpu`
pull-kubevirt-check-tests-for-flakes	`342c201`	link	false	`/test pull-kubevirt-check-tests-for-flakes`
pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.29-sig-monitoring	`342c201`	link	true	`/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.29-sig-monitoring`

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.

kubevirt-bot added dco-signoff: yes Indicates the PR's author has DCO signed all their commits. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. size/XXL labels May 2, 2024

kubevirt-bot requested review from akalenyu, alicefr, awels, kbidarkar, machadovilaca, oshoval and rthallisey May 2, 2024 12:33

RamLavi force-pushed the bump_k8s_vendor_v0.30.0 branch from 13af120 to b4a4ae9 Compare May 2, 2024 12:58

xpivarc reviewed May 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

oshoval reviewed May 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

RamLavi force-pushed the bump_k8s_vendor_v0.30.0 branch from b4a4ae9 to 00b0bf3 Compare May 5, 2024 12:57

kubevirt-bot added the sig/network label May 5, 2024

RamLavi force-pushed the bump_k8s_vendor_v0.30.0 branch 3 times, most recently from 8de6611 to f97cee5 Compare May 6, 2024 17:49

jean-edouard reviewed May 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

kubevirt-bot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels May 7, 2024

kubevirt-bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 20, 2024

kubevirt-bot added do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels May 21, 2024

RamLavi force-pushed the bump_k8s_vendor_v0.30.0 branch from ca842bf to 342c201 Compare May 27, 2024 08:13

kubevirt-bot removed lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels May 27, 2024

kubevirt-bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 28, 2024

kubevirt-bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 29, 2024

kubevirt-bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 29, 2024

k8s: Bump k8s libraries to v0.30.0 #11840

Are you sure you want to change the base?

k8s: Bump k8s libraries to v0.30.0 #11840

Conversation

RamLavi commented May 2, 2024 • edited

What this PR does

Why we need it and why it was done in this way

Special notes for your reviewer

Checklist

Release note

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RamLavi May 5, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RamLavi May 5, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RamLavi May 6, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RamLavi May 5, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RamLavi commented May 7, 2024

jean-edouard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kubevirt-bot commented May 7, 2024

kubevirt-commenter-bot commented May 20, 2024

RamLavi commented May 20, 2024

kubevirt-commenter-bot commented May 21, 2024

kubevirt-commenter-bot commented May 21, 2024

akrejcir commented May 21, 2024

brianmcarey commented May 21, 2024

kubevirt-commenter-bot commented May 21, 2024

RamLavi commented May 21, 2024

fossedihelm commented May 22, 2024

RamLavi commented May 22, 2024 • edited

oshoval commented May 22, 2024

RamLavi commented May 27, 2024

fossedihelm commented May 28, 2024

kubevirt-commenter-bot commented May 28, 2024

oshoval commented May 28, 2024

RamLavi commented May 29, 2024

brianmcarey commented May 29, 2024

oshoval commented May 29, 2024

RamLavi commented May 29, 2024

kubevirt-bot commented May 29, 2024

RamLavi commented May 2, 2024 •

edited

RamLavi May 5, 2024 •

edited

RamLavi May 5, 2024 •

edited

RamLavi May 6, 2024 •

edited

RamLavi May 5, 2024 •

edited

RamLavi commented May 22, 2024 •

edited