-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.1k
docs: add necessary feature gate information for KEP-5073 - Declarative Validation of K8s Native Types With validation-gen #49732
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
👷 Deploy Preview for kubernetes-io-vnext-staging processing.
|
✅ Pull request preview available for checkingBuilt without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
f5d6b34 to
5f3a129
Compare
bf7a05d to
5b0e9a8
Compare
|
Hello @aaron-prindle 👋 please take a look at Documenting for a release - PR Ready for Review to get your PR ready for review before Tuesday 25th March 2025 18:00 PDT. Thank you! |
|
@hacktivist123 thanks for the information here. This PR is ready for review and I have changed the status to such. The docs mention:
I am not sure if our feature has an assigned documentation person, do you happen to know who that might be or if we assign that person? I'm going to tag @sftim for now to attempt to get into a review queue but happy to change it if there is a more appropriate person for review. Thanks! /assign @sftim |
bf4af71 to
fb7aa40
Compare
fb7aa40 to
64d9c00
Compare
There was not plans to write this documentation for the v1.33 release, initially the idea was to only add the feature gate documentation in v1.33. Declarative Validation is a maintainer+developer facing feature primarily, not an end-user facing feature (it unlocks some end users features but not in the near term). In v1.34 the plan was to add a full set of kubernetes developer facing documentation that explains:
The plan was to do this in v1.34 when we have upstreamed more of the validators to k/k and have documented the plan for how we want developers using declarative validation for new k8s native APIs/fields as well as where we want to focus the k8s dev community on the migration (we are hoping to get the community to aid in the migration and document how they can be most effective) |
64d9c00 to
e193bee
Compare
|
/cc @jpbetz |
...n/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/feature-gates/DeclarativeValidationTakeover.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…ve Validation of K8s Native Types With validation-gen
e193bee to
fc8270a
Compare
|
/approve |
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 3e8bf15161b422ea05926784183524a01d45a8cb
|
|
@sftim would it be possible to merge the feature gate PR as is for now w/o the additional documentation mentioned? Currently the plan from folks working on Declarative Validation was for additional documentation to land once we have added some additional Validators upstream and then we can document the usage of those additional validators in our initial documentation piece. We plan to add the documentation noted in the comments above in a future PR |
We ask for documentation the first time a feature gate is added, unless the feature gate doesn't have an effect (in which case, usually the project should revert the feature gate in the code). If someone is writing an extension API server, and they want to use this, what do they need to know? We should aim to document a minimum useful level of detail. |
This one is tricky. The feature gate switches the implementation of validation (for only 2 fields in ReplicationController in 1.33). When the feature gates are on there is an additional metric. The feature gate docs plus the metrics docs feel like they explain this reasonably well. The apiserver, as a library, cannot reasonably use it yet because the validation tags implemented are only sufficient for the fields we've migrated so far. I agree with the sentiment that we should document features as we go. I'm struggling a bit to find a somewhere we could write something meaningful. We're adding I was expecting us to do the bulk of declarative validation in the code and in the contrib repository (for guides on how to migrate). Should we introduce a new page for "apiserver development" or "extension apiserver internals"? Does that fit into the website? |
|
I agree that this doesn't seem to need much documentation, but I think it needs some.
Maybe just a stub. We already have https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/extend-kubernetes/api-extension/apiserver-aggregation/ and that page could link to the stub. We don't need any documentation aimed at people contributing to Kubernetes itself (but if we did, it would live within https://k8s.dev/docs/ anyway and not on this site).
|
@sftim - I have submitted a PR to add documentation that addresses the questions in the quoted comment and links this documentation in the suggested page. Link to the PR is here: #50265 |
|
Hello @aaron-prindle 👋! I'm reaching out from the Docs team. Just checking in as we approach Docs Freeze on 8th April, 2025 18:00 PDT. |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jpbetz, tengqm 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
PR related to docs changes necessary for KEP 5073
KEP Issue: kubernetes/enhancements#5073
KEP PR: kubernetes/enhancements#5074
KEP Implementation PRs:
(related: kubernetes/enhancements#5073 (comment))