Need to discuss how to handle the case when a PV is deleted while creating a VolumeGroupSnapshot

[xing-yang]

What happened:
This was brought up during the code review: #1171 (comment). If a PV is deleted while creating a VolumeGroupSnapshot, should we bail out and fail the entire VolumeGroupSnapshot creation or should we continue and just leave the field for PV empty. If we do the later, that means we don't have a way to restore the PV that got deleted.

What you expected to happen:

How to reproduce it:

Anything else we need to know?:

Environment:

• Driver version:
• Kubernetes version (use kubectl version):
• OS (e.g. from /etc/os-release):
• Kernel (e.g. uname -a):
• Install tools:
• Others:

[yati1998]

in my opinion it would be better to return error that pv has been deleted. Let me know how do you want it to work
cc @xing-yang
also please feel free to tag people who could answer it better and lets work on it.

[yati1998]

@jsafrane any decision or suggestion on this?

[jsafrane]

I think it's fair to create a VolumeSnapshotContent + VolumeSnapshot for such a snapshot, and not to refer to a PV / PVC in them. It's up to the user to figure out what data is on the snapshot.
I think the current implementation is written this way.

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.

This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Close this issue with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale