feat(event): emit events for ingress,svc,pod,node,crd by ivankatliarchuk · Pull Request #6099 · kubernetes-sigs/external-dns

ivankatliarchuk · 2026-01-11T10:06:37Z

What does it do ?

Added emit events for

pod
node
service
ingress
crd

Interesting statistic for this PR

┌──────────┬───────┐
│ Category │ Lines │
├──────────┼───────┤
│ Non-test │ +77   │
├──────────┼───────┤
│ Test     │ +737  │
├──────────┼───────┤
│ Docs     │ +5    │
├──────────┼───────┤
│ Ratio    │ 1:9.5 │
└──────────┴───────┘

Tested

Events emitted for sources

Capture record errors

Follow-up

emit metrics related to events
all sources support
more unit-tests
event TTL is not displayed correctly
when endpoints merged, event should be sent to multiple objects if multiple objects where involved

Motivation

Adding support for event emitting

More

Yes, this PR title follows Conventional Commits
Yes, I added unit tests
Yes, I updated end user documentation accordingly

require: #6076
require: #6119

…t client creation Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

coveralls · 2026-01-11T10:12:43Z

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 23117764731

Details

0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
125 unchanged lines in 10 files lost coverage.
Overall coverage increased (+0.007%) to 79.695%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
utils.go	4	95.35%
fakes/provider.go	6	0.0%
events/types.go	6	90.44%
pod.go	9	95.52%
node.go	12	90.4%
ingress.go	13	88.42%
testutils/endpoint.go	15	68.57%
crd.go	18	69.05%
unstructured.go	20	82.28%
service.go	22	94.07%

Totals
Change from base Build 23116604893:	0.007%
Covered Lines:	16642
Relevant Lines:	20882

💛 - Coveralls

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

ivankatliarchuk · 2026-03-10T23:35:46Z

/test pull-external-dns-unit-test

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

ivankatliarchuk · 2026-03-15T18:44:18Z

/test pull-external-dns-unit-test

vflaux · 2026-02-20T17:38:01Z

controller/events_test.go

+func TestEmit_RecordError(t *testing.T) {
+	refObj := &events.ObjectReference{}
+	changes := plan.Changes{
+		Create: []*endpoint.Endpoint{
+			endpoint.NewEndpoint("one.example.com", endpoint.RecordTypeA, "10.10.10.0").
+				WithRefObject(refObj),
+		},
+		UpdateNew: []*endpoint.Endpoint{
+			endpoint.NewEndpoint("two.example.com", endpoint.RecordTypeA, "10.10.10.1").
+				WithRefObject(refObj),
+		},
+	}
+	emitter := fake.NewFakeEventEmitter()
+
+	emitChangeEvent(emitter, changes, events.RecordError)
+
+	emitter.AssertCalled(t, "Add", events.NewEventFromEndpoint(changes.Create[0], events.ActionCreate, events.RecordError))
+	emitter.AssertCalled(t, "Add", events.NewEventFromEndpoint(changes.UpdateNew[0], events.ActionUpdate, events.RecordError))
+	emitter.AssertNumberOfCalls(t, "Add", 2)
+}


Why no test for ``Delete` changes too?

Yep, looks like missed that gap. Deletes have unique behavior: the reason is overridden. On success they emit RecordDeleted (not RecordReady); on failure they emit RecordError. This is a deliberate branch that differs from Create/Update.

Restructured test, and added new sub-case to explicitly documents the contract

pkg/events/types_test.go

vflaux · 2026-03-15T18:06:58Z

source/utils_test.go

 	}
 }

+func TestMergeEndpoints_RefObjects(t *testing.T) {


Why not test this in TestMergeEndpoints()?

Same as #6099 (comment). This is cosmetics at the moment, but I share pros/cons for merging

Pros of merging:

One place to look for all MergeEndpoints behavior

Reduces test function count

Cons:

Table struct becomes a union with optional fields or changes entirely - hurts readability of the simple cases

assert.ElementsMatch can't verify RefObject: you'd need per-case assertion logic regardless

Mixes two concerns: target merging vs. metadata preservation after merge

TestMergeEndpointsLogging is already split out for the same reason (third concern: side effects)

TestMergeEndpoints owns output shape, TestMergeEndpoints_RefObjects owns metadata fidelity, TestMergeEndpointsLogging owns side effects. Each has its own assertion style that would conflict if combined.

vflaux · 2026-03-15T18:45:09Z

source/wrappers/dedupsource_test.go

 	}
 }
+
+func TestDedupSource_RefObjects(t *testing.T) {


Why not include this in testDedupEndpoints()?

Techically, it could be done. I could say this is more a preference how to unit tests in isolation, keep tests focused etc

The outcome is same --> Different concerns:

TestDedupEndpoints: which endpoints survive dedup (DNS name + target identity)

TestDedupSource_RefObjects: which metadata is preserved on the survivor (RefObject fidelity)

The expected field is different

When test cases start to require slightly different setup, you’ve crossed a concern boundary and should keep them in separate tests. In follow up TestDedupSource_RefObjects may become a bit more complex as well, as deduplicated endpoint may have multiple references to kubernets objects.

Co-authored-by: vflaux <38909103+vflaux@users.noreply.github.com>

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

vflaux · 2026-03-15T22:21:43Z

/lgtm

ivankatliarchuk · 2026-03-15T22:32:26Z

/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2026-03-15T22:32:35Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ivankatliarchuk

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [ivankatliarchuk]

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

ivankatliarchuk and others added 10 commits January 2, 2026 10:02

refactore(kubeclient): consolidate duplicate code to ensure consisten…

d94d9ed

…t client creation Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

refactore(kubeclient): consolidate duplicate code to ensure consisten…

aa272f7

…t client creation Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

refactore(kubeclient): consolidate duplicate code to ensure consisten…

c75503b

…t client creation Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

refactore(kubeclient): consolidate duplicate code to ensure consisten…

2aada8d

…t client creation Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

Merge branch 'master' into chore-kubeconfig

416354a

refactore(kubeclient): consolidate duplicate code to ensure consisten…

ae86269

…t client creation Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

refactore(kubeclient): consolidate duplicate code to ensure consisten…

1dcb530

…t client creation Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

refactore(kubeclient): consolidate duplicate code to ensure consisten…

2305170

…t client creation Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

refactore(kubeclient): consolidate duplicate code to ensure consisten…

b8b1d54

…t client creation Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node

c3ead72

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jan 11, 2026

ivankatliarchuk marked this pull request as draft January 11, 2026 10:06

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from szuecs January 11, 2026 10:06

k8s-ci-robot added the controller Issues or PRs related to the controller label Jan 11, 2026

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from vflaux January 11, 2026 10:06

k8s-ci-robot added source size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jan 11, 2026

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node

6b5803e

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

k8s-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jan 11, 2026

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node

cd6a8f7

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

ivankatliarchuk mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2026

refactor(kubeclient): consolidate duplicate code #6076

Merged

3 tasks

ivankatliarchuk added 2 commits January 11, 2026 14:06

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node

48ea538

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node

446c968

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 16, 2026

Merge branch 'master' into feat-event-101

a24e3bb

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 16, 2026

ivankatliarchuk force-pushed the feat-event-101 branch from 580bcfd to e3247d8 Compare January 16, 2026 10:35

ivankatliarchuk and others added 6 commits February 26, 2026 20:18

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node,crd

b331409

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

Merge branch 'master' into feat-event-101

b5d494f

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node,crd

ec66ec3

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node,crd

3f97957

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node,crd

17f9754

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node,crd

bc96c04

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

ivankatliarchuk force-pushed the feat-event-101 branch from d34dddd to 4334924 Compare March 1, 2026 15:35

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node,crd

ebcb2ad

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

ivankatliarchuk force-pushed the feat-event-101 branch from 4334924 to ebcb2ad Compare March 1, 2026 15:50

ivankatliarchuk and others added 5 commits March 12, 2026 09:00

refactore(source): move SuitableType to endpiont package

4d5beeb

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

refactore(source): move SuitableType to endpiont package

19cf808

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node,crd

71740ed

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

Merge branch 'master' into feat-event-101

e326cde

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node,crd

ec136a6

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

vflaux suggested changes Mar 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned vflaux Mar 15, 2026

ivankatliarchuk and others added 3 commits March 15, 2026 18:56

Merge branch 'kubernetes-sigs:master' into feat-event-101

9133e7b

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node,crd

d5bcfac

Co-authored-by: vflaux <38909103+vflaux@users.noreply.github.com>

feat(event): add support for svc,ingress,pod,node,crd

93514f5

Signed-off-by: ivan katliarchuk <ivan.katliarchuk@gmail.com>

ivankatliarchuk requested a review from vflaux March 15, 2026 19:43

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 15, 2026

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 15, 2026

k8s-ci-robot merged commit e1f8484 into kubernetes-sigs:master Mar 15, 2026
18 checks passed

ivankatliarchuk deleted the feat-event-101 branch March 15, 2026 23:20

mloiseleur mentioned this pull request Mar 16, 2026

docs(sources): surface provider-specific annotations support in documentation #6231

Merged

3 tasks

Conversation

ivankatliarchuk commented Jan 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What does it do ?

Motivation

More

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Jan 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 23117764731

Details

💛 - Coveralls

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk commented Mar 10, 2026

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk commented Mar 15, 2026

Uh oh!

vflaux Feb 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk Mar 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vflaux Mar 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk Mar 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vflaux Mar 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk Mar 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vflaux commented Mar 15, 2026

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk commented Mar 15, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Mar 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

ivankatliarchuk commented Jan 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coveralls commented Jan 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ivankatliarchuk Mar 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ivankatliarchuk Mar 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading