-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
🐛 Update object upon deletion #3098
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ func (uc *unstructuredClient) Delete(ctx context.Context, obj Object, opts ...De | |
Name(o.name). | ||
Body(deleteOpts.AsDeleteOptions()). | ||
Do(ctx). | ||
Error() | ||
Into(obj) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think we also need a test case that when we delete via Unstructured without a finalizer the object keeps its data and does not become a There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Should we maybe just check if the returned body is a status and only if its not update the original object? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. As far as I can tell there's no way to tell apart you got the object back or a metav1.Status unless you actually read the request body. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Which I think might be okay, the main overhead will be that we have to deserialize it twice if it is not a status There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think it would be a bad UX if after calling client.Delete() you only sometimes see the deletionTimestamp set :/ There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. In general, it appears if it's gone from storage you'll get Status object in the response body. (You can try Pod deletion with grace period.) But I don't think there's a guarantee around any of this in the API machinery. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I mean what can we realistically put in there if the object is gone from storage? I guess we could put a non-nil fake deletiontimestamp in there but not sure if that is a good idea. What is IMHO annoying about the current state is that you can not do a check of There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Since Delete() already doesn't do what we expect it to do, what if we changed its return signature to There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yup agree. I mostly just meant that if deletionTimestamp is only sometimes set (aka in some cases) this would be tricky to rely on |
||
} | ||
|
||
// DeleteAllOf implements client.Client. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we also test this with
unstructured.Unstructured
andmetav1.MetaObject
, please?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unstructured works... metav1.MetaObject will require a fair bit more work.
controller-runtime/pkg/client/metadata_client.go
Line 67 in c5bb1d4
Not sure if this is relevant?
controller-runtime/pkg/client/metadata_client.go
Line 30 in c5bb1d4
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should also implement this for the metadata client. It's already tricky that we change a nuance like this, but I think it's a lot worse if our clients behave inconsistently