The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: lorenzofelletti / name: Lorenzo Felletti (e963d62, fcf54f5)

Welcome @lorenzofelletti!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/kustomize 🎉. 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-sigs/kustomize 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. 😃

Hi @lorenzofelletti. 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.

This PR has multiple commits, and the default merge method is: merge.
You can request commits to be squashed using the label: tide/merge-method-squash

/test all

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lorenzofelletti
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign varshaprasad96 for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Hi @stormqueen1990!

I'm developing a KRM function in which I'd like the configuration not to allow extra fields, e.g. I want to avoid users inadvertently doing X instead of Y:

# X
spec:
  fieldA:
    fieldB: true
    fieldC: 4
# Y
spec:
  fieldA:
    fieldC: 4
  fieldB: true

If that happens, fieldB would be defaulted in Golang to false, and no indication that the nesting is actually incorrect will be given to the user. This might lead to a function generating a configuration which is not what the user intended, and the user has to dig to understand the reason of this behaviour, until they'll find the indentation error is causing this.

It'd be much faster if an incorrect configuration just fails because of serialisation error.

To achieve this behaviour, one currently has to filter the ResourceList items, find the config manifest, serialise it, deserialise it again with the strict option, fail if the deserialisation errors.

By adding this option as a function configuration parameter, it is much easier for the function's developers to achieve this behaviour out-of-the-box.

I've set the feature to default to false for backwards compatibility, but I actually think this behaviour should be the default one, but I might be wrong in that.