Skip to content

🐛 Fakeclient: Validate managed fields on init objects #3282

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

Merged

Conversation

alvaroaleman
Copy link
Member

@alvaroaleman alvaroaleman commented Aug 17, 2025

When the FieldManager in the FieldManagedObjectTracker encounters managed fields it can not decode, it will just silently clear them.

This breaks anyone who has tests where the fakeclient gets initialized with objects that have invalid managed fields. This worked prior to using the FieldManagedObjectTracker, as the default testing.ObjectTracker we used before has no understanding of them.

Validate the managedFields during fake client initialization to make this issue properly visible.

As an alternative to this patch I had initially considered to just try fix them up. That would however require that the fake client understands what constitutes valid managedFields and how they can be fixed up, which might not always be clear and would end up being pretty magic. Thus we just import the validation code and let the user know.

When the FieldManager in the FieldManagedObjectTracker encounters
managed fields it can not decode, it will just silently clear them.

This breaks anyone who has tests where the fakeclient gets initialized
with objects that have invalid managed fields. This worked prior to
using the `FieldManagedObjectTracker`, as the default
`testing.ObjectTracker` we used before has no understanding of them.

Validate the `managedFields` during fake client initialization to make
this issue properly visible.
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Aug 17, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 17, 2025
@sbueringer
Copy link
Member

Thank you!

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 18, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 40ca5b1f74ce4a2047c86d70dddd9815b480fa1c

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: alvaroaleman, sbueringer

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 [alvaroaleman,sbueringer]

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 merged commit b5aad1b into kubernetes-sigs:main Aug 18, 2025
23 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
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. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants