docs: merge 'custom' and 'implementation-specific' conformance

[LCaparelli]

Signed-off-by: Lucas Caparelli [email protected]

What type of PR is this?
/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR merges the concepts of custom and implementation-specific conformance into implementation-specific only in order to simplify the spec. All custom conformance mentions were replaced by implementation-specific.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #640

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Changes "custom" conformance level to "implementation-specific"

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: LCaparelli / name: Lucas Caparelli (376e789)

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @LCaparelli!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @LCaparelli. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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/test-infra repository.

[LCaparelli]

I also changed these in the GEPs, please let know if that's unwanted.

[robscott]

Thanks @LCaparelli! This looks like a good simplification to me but will defer to another maintainer to confirm since this is changing our language around conformance levels.

/ok-to-test
/lgtm

/cc @youngnick @shaneutt

[LCaparelli]

Weird, runs fine locally 🤔

❯ go version
go version go1.18.7 linux/amd64
❯ git push
Everything up-to-date
❯ make verify
hack/verify-all.sh -v
Skipping hack/../hack/verify-all.sh
Verified 178 file headers match boilerplate
SUCCESS: hack/../hack/verify-boilerplate.sh 
make[1]: Entering directory '/home/lucascaparelli/gitrepos/gateway-api'
hack/update-codegen.sh
Generating CRDs
2022/10/06 10:10:37 generating standard CRD for Gateway.gateway.networking.k8s.io
2022/10/06 10:10:37 generating standard CRD for GatewayClass.gateway.networking.k8s.io
2022/10/06 10:10:37 generating standard CRD for HTTPRoute.gateway.networking.k8s.io
2022/10/06 10:10:37 generating experimental CRD for GatewayClass.gateway.networking.k8s.io
2022/10/06 10:10:37 generating experimental CRD for TCPRoute.gateway.networking.k8s.io
2022/10/06 10:10:37 generating experimental CRD for UDPRoute.gateway.networking.k8s.io
2022/10/06 10:10:37 generating experimental CRD for GRPCRoute.gateway.networking.k8s.io
2022/10/06 10:10:37 generating experimental CRD for HTTPRoute.gateway.networking.k8s.io
2022/10/06 10:10:37 generating experimental CRD for TLSRoute.gateway.networking.k8s.io
2022/10/06 10:10:37 generating experimental CRD for ReferenceGrant.gateway.networking.k8s.io
2022/10/06 10:10:37 generating experimental CRD for Gateway.gateway.networking.k8s.io
Generating clientset at sigs.k8s.io/gateway-api/pkg/client/clientset
Generating listers at sigs.k8s.io/gateway-api/pkg/client/listers
Generating informers at sigs.k8s.io/gateway-api/pkg/client/informers
Generating v1alpha2 register at sigs.k8s.io/gateway-api/apis/v1alpha2
Generating v1alpha2 deepcopy at sigs.k8s.io/gateway-api/apis/v1alpha2
Generating v1beta1 register at sigs.k8s.io/gateway-api/apis/v1beta1
Generating v1beta1 deepcopy at sigs.k8s.io/gateway-api/apis/v1beta1
hack/update-webhook-yaml.sh
No version requested with BASE_REF, nothing to do.
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/lucascaparelli/gitrepos/gateway-api'
SUCCESS: hack/../hack/verify-codegen.sh 

Fails on CI:

Generating v1beta1 register at sigs.k8s.io/gateway-api/apis/v1beta1
Generating v1beta1 deepcopy at sigs.k8s.io/gateway-api/apis/v1beta1
hack/update-webhook-yaml.sh
No version requested with BASE_REF, nothing to do.
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/prow/go/src/sigs.k8s.io/gateway-api'
Uncommitted changes in generated sources:
 M pkg/client/clientset/versioned/fake/register.go
 M pkg/client/clientset/versioned/scheme/register.go
Test FAILED: hack/../hack/verify-codegen.sh 

[LCaparelli]

I'll take a closer look at what the script does, had some trouble with an outdated kubectl on my side, might be picking up some other old dependency on my end.

[robscott]

Hey @LCaparelli, sorry for the confusion here, I think the k8s codegen requires that you're using go1.19 now.

[LCaparelli]

Hey @LCaparelli, sorry for the confusion here, I think the k8s codegen requires that you're using go1.19 now.

Ah yes, that apparently did the trick (at least it changed the two files the CI was complaining about), thanks!

Adding a quick version check at the codegen script sounds reasonable @robscott? And if so, it it ok to include in this PR?

[robscott]

Thanks @LCaparelli! This LGTM, will defer to @youngnick or @shaneutt to formally sign off on this change though.

Adding a quick version check at the codegen script sounds reasonable @robscott? And if so, it it ok to include in this PR?

This is a great idea, do you mind filing a follow up PR for that?

[shaneutt]

Yep, I like this change 👍

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: LCaparelli, shaneutt

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 [shaneutt]

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

[LCaparelli]

Thanks @robscott @shaneutt! Follow-up for version check: #1443