Fix slice-only TAS

[lchrzaszcz]

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

To achieve slice-only TAS, user has to provide slice required topology, slice size and optionally unconstrained annotation. Due to a bug in validation, if user provides slice required topology without required, preferred or unconstrained annotations, Kueue will ignore slice topology and rank-ordering of the pods.

This PR fixes that issue and adds explicit end-to-end test for rank-ordering in slice-only TAS.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Special notes for your reviewer:

I am leaving release notes as NONE, because this is a fix to TAS which is targeted at 0.13 anyway.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	74b8afe
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/kubernetes-sigs-kueue/deploys/686d49a5f369370009814e6d
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-5905--kubernetes-sigs-kueue.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @lchrzaszcz. 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.

[mimowo]

/ok-to-test

[gabesaba]

/lgtm

thanks!

[gabesaba]

Given the defaulting logic, sliceTopologyFound is false iff the user provided an invalid slice key?

[lchrzaszcz]

Yup, that is correct.

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: ffb9d361ef10231936c039e4f2ae428c0c73c780

[mimowo]

/approve
Looks great, thank you!

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lchrzaszcz, mimowo

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 [mimowo]

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

[mimowo]

/hold

[mimowo]

/unhold
Ok, let it merge anyway, but a follow up question (potentially cleanup issue): can we add a unit test for this, so that it is easier to debug? I think the e2e test is still valuable, but looking also for something lightweight.

[lchrzaszcz]

/unhold Ok, let it merge anyway, but a follow up question (potentially cleanup issue): can we add a unit test for this, so that it is easier to debug? I think the e2e test is still valuable, but looking also for something lightweight.

Sure! I agree that e2e is valuable and I explicitly wanted to add it, to be sure that rank-ordering for slice-only topologies work as expected because it did work in unit tests, but due to validation in earlier stage it turned out the code for that was never used. I think we should add test for validation, because this is the one test that is missing. WDYT?

[mimowo]

Unit test for validation is one thing + I think we could also add a unit test demonstrating the changes done to pkg/cache/tas_flavor_snapshot.go, wdyt?