Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

KEP 1645: remove MCS EndpointSlice ownership requirement #4900

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 8, 2024
Merged

KEP 1645: remove MCS EndpointSlice ownership requirement #4900

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 8, 2024

Conversation

tpantelis
Copy link
Contributor

@tpantelis tpantelis commented Oct 3, 2024 •
edited
Loading

  • One-line PR description: Remove MCS EndpointSlice ownership requirement
  • Other comments: It was discussed at a recent sig meeting that the KEP shoudn't mandate an MCS EndpointSlice to have an OwnerReference to its ServiceImport as long as there is another cleanup mechanism in place.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Oct 3, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the kind/kep Categorizes KEP tracking issues and PRs modifying the KEP directory label Oct 3, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the sig/multicluster Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Multicluster. label Oct 3, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @tpantelis!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/enhancements 🎉. 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/enhancements 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
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @tpantelis. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 3, 2024
@tpantelis
Copy link
Contributor Author

/cc @MrFreezeex

@tpantelis tpantelis mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2024
Merged
MrFreezeex
MrFreezeex approved these changes Oct 3, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@MrFreezeex MrFreezeex left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not entirely sure I have the permission to add a lgtm label here but let's see 👀
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 3, 2024
@MrFreezeex
Copy link
Member

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Oct 3, 2024
@tpantelis
Copy link
Contributor Author

/assign @JeremyOT

aojea
aojea reviewed Oct 3, 2024
View reviewed changes
keps/sig-multicluster/1645-multi-cluster-services-api/README.md Outdated
`EndpointSlices` will have an owner reference to their associated
`ServiceImport`.
`EndpointSlices` should have an owner reference to their associated
`ServiceImport` unless the implementation has another mechanism to delete
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this seems very open, are there any requirements this "mechanism to delete EndpointSlices" should met?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess the only requirement is that the EndpointSlice should be deleted when the service is unexported. Exactly how that is done shouldn't matter. In fact, two known implementations do not use owner refs, hence this PR.

How about this text:

When a service is un-exported, the associated EndpointSlices will be deleted. The specific mechanism by which they are deleted is an implementation detail.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@tpantelis tpantelis Oct 3, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I updated the commit with the above text.

@tpantelis tpantelis mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2024
Closed
11 tasks
@tpantelis
KEP 1645: remove EndpointSlice ownership requirement
3e4d032 
It was discussed at a recent sig meeting that the KEP shoudn't mandate
an MCS EndpointSlice to have an OwnerReference to its ServiceImport as
long as there is another cleanup mechanism in place.

Signed-off-by: Tom Pantelis <[email protected]>
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 3, 2024
@MrFreezeex
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 6, 2024
@skitt
Copy link
Member

skitt commented Oct 8, 2024

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: MrFreezeex, skitt, tpantelis

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 8, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 88997b8 into kubernetes:master Oct 8, 2024
4 checks passed
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.32 milestone Oct 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@aojea aojea aojea left review comments

@MrFreezeex MrFreezeex MrFreezeex approved these changes

@JeremyOT JeremyOT Awaiting requested review from JeremyOT

@skitt skitt Awaiting requested review from skitt

Assignees

@JeremyOT JeremyOT

@MrFreezeex MrFreezeex

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/kep Categorizes KEP tracking issues and PRs modifying the KEP directory lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. sig/multicluster Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Multicluster. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.32
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@tpantelis @k8s-ci-robot @MrFreezeex @skitt @aojea @JeremyOT