Skip to content

fix: remove CreationTimestamp add ResourceVersion #439

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
Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

fix: remove CreationTimestamp add ResourceVersion #439

wants to merge 2 commits into from
+4 −0

Conversation

LY-today
Copy link
Contributor

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jun 18, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: LY-today
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign 196ikuchil for approval. For more information see the 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:

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 sig/scheduling Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Scheduling. label Jun 18, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested a review from 196Ikuchil June 18, 2025 11:53
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Jun 18, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @LY-today. 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-sigs/prow repository.

@LY-today LY-today mentioned this pull request Jun 18, 2025
Open
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 18, 2025
@LY-today
Copy link
Contributor Author

@saza-ku please check

@sanposhiho
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 Jun 18, 2025
@LY-today
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sanposhiho Hello, I see the process is stalled, what else needs to be done to move forward?

saza-ku
saza-ku reviewed Jun 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@saza-ku saza-ku left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We also need to fix resourceapplier, don't we?

@LY-today
Copy link
Contributor Author

We also need to fix resourceapplier, don't we?

I don't understand what you mean. Is there any problem with resourceapplier?

@saza-ku
Copy link
Contributor

saza-ku commented Jun 22, 2025

Because resourceapplier also doesn't clear CreationTimestamp, as we talked at #422 (comment).

@LY-today
Copy link
Contributor Author

Because resourceapplier also doesn't clear CreationTimestamp, as we talked at #422 (comment).

@saza-ku Does this mean that we need to add the logic of deleting CreationTimestamp in removeUnnecessaryMetadata?

@LY-today
Copy link
Contributor Author

LY-today commented Jun 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Because resourceapplier also doesn't clear CreationTimestamp, as we talked at #422 (comment).

@saza-ku done

@LY-today
Copy link
Contributor Author

Because resourceapplier also doesn't clear CreationTimestamp, as we talked at #422 (comment).

@saza-ku done

@saza-ku Is there anything else that needs to be adjusted?

saza-ku
saza-ku reviewed Jun 23, 2025
View reviewed changes
simulator/snapshot/snapshot.go
Comment on lines +498 to +500
pod.ObjectMetaApplyConfiguration.CreationTimestamp = nil
pod.ObjectMetaApplyConfiguration.ResourceVersion = nil

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you fix it by making SnapshotService use resourceapplier? I think SnapshotService also should use resourceapplier.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unfortunately, removeUnnecessaryMetadata is a private function and cannot be referenced in snapshots.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And the input parameters do not match

Copy link
Contributor

@saza-ku saza-ku Jun 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unfortunately, removeUnnecessaryMetadata is a private function and cannot be referenced in snapshots.

I mean SnapshotService should use resourceapplier to create resources, not by using clientset.Interface.

And the input parameters do not match

Yeah we might need to think about things like FieldManager. If you aren't having trouble with SnapshotService, you could leave it. I would create another issue.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unfortunately, removeUnnecessaryMetadata is a private function and cannot be referenced in snapshots.

I mean SnapshotService should use resourceapplier to create resources, not by using clientset.Interface.

And the input parameters do not match

Yeah we might need to think about things like FieldManager. If you aren't having trouble with SnapshotService, you could leave it. I would create another issue.

I haven't encountered this problem. It seems that all resources that need to be applied should be implemented in this way. In this case, can we merge this PR first, and then I will open a separate one to follow up on your question?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah we could first merge the fix to resourceapplier and then fix SnapshotService.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@saza-ku Is there anything else I need to do with this PR? Or can it be merged?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@196Ikuchil 196Ikuchil Awaiting requested review from 196Ikuchil

1 more reviewer

@saza-ku saza-ku saza-ku left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. sig/scheduling Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Scheduling. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@LY-today @k8s-ci-robot @sanposhiho @saza-ku