Add optional new fields to NutanixMachineProviderConfig

[yanhua121]

Add some optional new fields to NutanixMachineProviderConfig, for Windows support, etc.

[openshift-ci]

Hello @yanhua121! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api:
API design plays an important part in the user experience of OpenShift and as such API PRs are subject to a high level of scrutiny to ensure they follow our best practices. If you haven't already done so, please review the OpenShift API Conventions and ensure that your proposed changes are compliant. Following these conventions will help expedite the api review process for your PR.

For merging purposes, this repository follows the no-Feature-Freeze process which means that in addition to the standard lgtm and approved labels this repository requires either:

bugzilla/valid-bug - applied if your PR references a valid bugzilla bug

OR

qe-approved, docs-approved, and px-approved - these labels can be applied by anyone in the openshift org via the /label <labelname> command.

Who should apply these qe/docs/px labels?

• For a no-Feature-Freeze team who is merging a feature before code freeze, they need to get those labels applied to their api repo PR by the appropriate teams (i.e. qe, docs, px)
• For a Feature Freeze (traditional) team who is merging a feature before FF, they can self-apply the labels (via /label commands), they are basically irrelevant for those teams
• For a Feature Freeze team who is merging a feature after FF, the PR should be rejected barring an exception

[JoelSpeed]

/lgtm

[elmiko]

the bootType field can be tested with this openshift/machine-api-provider-nutanix#37

[elmiko]

the project and categories fields can be tested with this openshift/machine-api-provider-nutanix#38

[yanhua121]

The Machine webhook validation for these new fields can be tested with openshift/machine-api-operator#1117.

[huali9]

/label qe-approved

[JoelSpeed]

Quick question, do we need the omitempty on these fields? If we remove it, the fields will show in a serialized version with empty values, which then hints to users "oh, that's an option I can use", so it improves the discoverability, which is generally something we advise for configuration APIs such as these

[yanhua121]

Quick question, do we need the omitempty on these fields? If we remove it, the fields will show in a serialized version with empty values, which then hints to users "oh, that's an option I can use", so it improves the discoverability, which is generally something we advise for configuration APIs such as these

@JoelSpeed The only concern I have is if we remove the 'omitempty' on these optional fields, the Machine/MachineSet yaml used in a 4.13 cluster then cannot use to a OCP cluster with earlier version 4.11/4.12. In some scenario, customer may have clusters with different OCP versions. They may want to deploy the Machine/MachineSet yamls to all the cluster.

[JoelSpeed]

Unknown fields are just dropped on older versions so it would be ok to have the new fields with empty values and be applied to the older versions.

I don't think changing omitempty changes that scenario really. We can add it back if we find issues but I think for now it should be removed for discoverability

[yanhua121]

Unknown fields are just dropped on older versions so it would be ok to have the new fields with empty values and be applied to the older versions.

I don't think changing omitempty changes that scenario really. We can add it back if we find issues but I think for now it should be removed for discoverability

@JoelSpeed Okay, then I will go ahead to remove 'omitempty' for these optional fields.

[JoelSpeed]

/lgtm
/px-approved
/docs-approved

[yanhua121]

/retest-required

[openshift-ci]

@yanhua121: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[elmiko]

/lgtm

[elmiko]

/px-approved
/docs-approved

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: elmiko, JoelSpeed, yanhua121

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 [JoelSpeed]

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

[elmiko]

/label px-approved
/label docs-approved