Graduate the clone API to v1beta1 and deprecate v1alpha1

[iholder101]

What this PR does

The clone API was introduced about a year and a half ago: #7336.
Since then, it had been used by both our functional test suite, but also by real-life users.

Therefore, this PR graduates the API from v1alpha1 to v1beta1, and deprecates the former.

p.s. a user-guide update is ready to merge after this would get in: kubevirt/user-guide#859.

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

Graduate the clone API to v1beta1 and deprecate v1alpha1

[Barakmor1]

Thank you for the PR. I have a small question.

[Barakmor1]

I think we should also change:

kubevirt/pkg/virt-operator/resource/generate/components/crds.go

Line 70 in dd399cd

VIRTUALMACHINECLONE = "virtualmachineclones." + clonev1alpha1.VirtualMachineCloneKind.Group

like they did with snapshot transition to beta:

6202f83

[Barakmor1]

+1 for the alias

[akalenyu]

would you not prefer clonev1 instead of clone? from my experience that is usually the naming pattern for kube APIs

[iholder101]

Isn't clonev1 for the v1 version?
My idea here is to name it generically as clone which serves as the latest version of clone. This way when we'll decide to bump it to v1 we won't need to rename the alias.

TBH I don't feel strongly on this, but think if we want to change it then clonev1beta1 or clonebeta1 would be better than clonev1. WDYT?

[akalenyu]

it's fine, you can keep this

[iholder101]

I think we should also change:

kubevirt/pkg/virt-operator/resource/generate/components/crds.go

Line 70 in dd399cd

VIRTUALMACHINECLONE = "virtualmachineclones." + clonev1alpha1.VirtualMachineCloneKind.Group

like they did with snapshot transition to beta:

6202f83

I switched to clone.GroupName which is more generic, as it would suit all versions (BTW technically, clone.GroupName, clonev1alpha1.VirtualMachineCloneKind.Group and clonev1beta1.VirtualMachineCloneKind.Group are equal, but I agree that setting the alpha group name is misleading).

Thank you!

[Barakmor1]

Thank you!
/lgtm

[Barakmor1]

nit: I'ts probably the default value, i can't find it in the docs but with other objects we add:

		Conversion: &extv1.CustomResourceConversion{
			Strategy: extv1.NoneConverter,
		},

[iholder101]

Thanks for catching that!
I've verified that it is the default value:

func SetDefaults_CustomResourceDefinitionSpec(obj *CustomResourceDefinitionSpec) {
	if len(obj.Names.Singular) == 0 {
		obj.Names.Singular = strings.ToLower(obj.Names.Kind)
	}
	if len(obj.Names.ListKind) == 0 && len(obj.Names.Kind) > 0 {
		obj.Names.ListKind = obj.Names.Kind + "List"
	}
	if obj.Conversion == nil {
		obj.Conversion = &CustomResourceConversion{
			Strategy: NoneConverter,
		}
	}
}

[iholder101]

@mhenriks do you mind having a look? thanks!

[kubevirt-bot]

Pull requests that are marked with lgtm should receive a review
from an approver within 1 week.

After that period the bot marks them with the label needs-approver-review.

/label needs-approver-review

[iholder101]

@ShellyKa13 @akalenyu can one of you please review as storage approvers?

[iholder101]

ping @ShellyKa13 @akalenyu

[akalenyu]

While this is not a big deal, I recalled us not deprecating alpha on this change for the snapshot/export APIs
https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Amhenriks+v1beta1+is%3Amerged+
/lgtm

[kubevirt-bot]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[iholder101]

While this is not a big deal, I recalled us not deprecating alpha on this change for the snapshot/export APIs kubevirt/kubevirt/pulls (author:mhenriks v1beta1 is:merged)

Thank you @akalenyu!
I followed your approach and removed the deprecation 👍

/lgtm

Thanks for the LGTM 😄 but TBH I was expecting you'd review this as an approver and not a reviewer.

We're new to this, but in general this is the new review workflow as I see it:

• PR is being reviewed by a reviewer, which LGTMs.
• The PR owner pings relevant SIG approvers, each SIG approver approves their field (storage/network/etc).
• Optionally, only if necessary, a root approver approves files that aren't owned by any SIGs yet.

Would you mind reviewing this as a storage-approver and /approve if you think the PR is ready?

[akalenyu]

While this is not a big deal, I recalled us not deprecating alpha on this change for the snapshot/export APIs kubevirt/kubevirt/pulls (author:mhenriks v1beta1 is:merged)

Thank you @akalenyu! I followed your approach and removed the deprecation 👍

/lgtm

Thanks for the LGTM 😄 but TBH I was expecting you'd review this as an approver and not a reviewer.

We're new to this, but in general this is the new review workflow as I see it:

• PR is being reviewed by a reviewer, which LGTMs.
• The PR owner pings relevant SIG approvers, each SIG approver approves their field (storage/network/etc).
• Optionally, only if necessary, a root approver approves files that aren't owned by any SIGs yet.

Would you mind reviewing this as a storage-approver and /approve if you think the PR is ready?

gotcha
/approve

[kubevirt-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: akalenyu
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from iholder101. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[iholder101]

@enp0s3 mind having another look?

[akalenyu]

@iholder101: 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-check-tests-for-flakes 293fcd4 link false /test pull-kubevirt-check-tests-for-flakes
pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.32-sig-storage 63a5841 link false /test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.32-sig-storage

@alicefr it's quite common for these health checks to fail after the persistent reservation tests, but I am not sure why. From a glance it looks like it waits for kubevirt to stabilize

[akalenyu]

/test pull-kubevirt-e2e-k8s-1.32-sig-storage

[kubevirt-bot]

@iholder101: The following test 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-check-tests-for-flakes	63a5841	link	false	/test pull-kubevirt-check-tests-for-flakes

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.