-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39.8k
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
Runtimeclass scheduling api #80825
Runtimeclass scheduling api #80825
Conversation
a12e9bc
to
d388a00
Compare
This PR may require API review. If so, when the changes are ready, complete the pre-review checklist and request an API review. Status of requested reviews is tracked in the API Review project. |
d388a00
to
5294f28
Compare
/retest |
Scheduling: &v1alpha1.Scheduling{ | ||
NodeSelector: map[string]string{"extra-soft": "true"}, | ||
Tolerations: []corev1.Toleration{{ | ||
Key: "stinky", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nice key.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
API approved, couple of quick questions
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: tallclair, thockin 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/lgtm I'll LGTM - you decide about the patchability and remove the hold, or fix it and ping me. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
Co-authored-by: Tim Allclair <[email protected]>
5294f28
to
d548798
Compare
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
Did we make a decision about patchability? The LGTM is yours. |
AFAIK, there is no patching for multiple keys. The multiple key thing is only for apply. Also (and we need to improve on this), keys should be required, and here they are all optional. Replacing the "short" list of tolerations is fine with a JSONPatch. |
That's what I thought you'd say. Great point about keys needing to not be optional |
/retest |
Hi @tallclair, is this PR ready for merge or need more discussions? |
Haven't looked much at the code, but I'm fine with the listType. |
/hold cancel |
Do NodeAffinity plan to gradually took over from NodeSelecter? |
What type of PR is this?
/kind api-change
What this PR does / why we need it:
This is a roll-forward of #78598, which was reverted since the implementation of the API didn't make the 1.15 cutoff.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
For #72413
Special notes for your reviewer:
Changes from the original PR:
Overhead
API, a few stylistic changes for consistency.+listType=map
and associated keys, to pass new API verification. listtype & keys should match those on the PodSpec tolerations, but the tags are missing on that field (legacy exception).Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:
/sig node
/priority important-soon
/milestone v1.16
/assign @yastij @thockin
/cc @egernst