- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 1.2k
⚠️ Generic Validator and Defaulter #3360
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
          
     Open
      
      
            alvaroaleman
  wants to merge
  15
  commits into
  kubernetes-sigs:main
  
    
      
        
          
  
    
      Choose a base branch
      
     
    
      
        
      
      
        
          
          
        
        
          
            
              
              
              
  
           
        
        
          
            
              
              
           
        
       
     
  
        
          
            
          
            
          
        
       
    
      
from
alvaroaleman:typed
  
      
      
   
  
    
  
  
  
 
  
      
    base: main
Could not load branches
            
              
  
    Branch not found: {{ refName }}
  
            
                
      Loading
              
            Could not load tags
            
            
              Nothing to show
            
              
  
            
                
      Loading
              
            Are you sure you want to change the base?
            Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
            and old review comments may become outdated.
          
          
  
     Open
                    Changes from all commits
      Commits
    
    
            Show all changes
          
          
            15 commits
          
        
        Select commit
          Hold shift + click to select a range
      
      955d723
              
                Type defaulter and validator
              
              
                alvaroaleman 8196239
              
                Builder
              
              
                alvaroaleman fc15d4a
              
                Introduce WebhookFor
              
              
                alvaroaleman 48a1c08
              
                Update existing WebhookManagedBy
              
              
                alvaroaleman 3cc1910
              
                Linting
              
              
                alvaroaleman 7a149e8
              
                Preserve alias for NewWebhookManagedBy
              
              
                alvaroaleman 2b33f30
              
                Use WithDefaulter/WithValidator going forward
              
              
                alvaroaleman 6fc8cb1
              
                Test defaulter
              
              
                alvaroaleman cad0736
              
                TestValidatorBuilder
              
              
                alvaroaleman 4344a72
              
                Mixed
              
              
                alvaroaleman 3c11c98
              
                Custom and Typed validator/defaulter are mutually exclusive
              
              
                alvaroaleman 480d040
              
                Type new in validator
              
              
                alvaroaleman 2e246e9
              
                Simplify builder
              
              
                alvaroaleman 8f65834
              
                Re-add aliases
              
              
                alvaroaleman 31c6c99
              
                feedback
              
              
                alvaroaleman File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
          Failed to load comments.   
        
        
          
      Loading
        
  Jump to
        
          Jump to file
        
      
      
          Failed to load files.   
        
        
          
      Loading
        
  Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
      
      Oops, something went wrong.
        
    
  
      
      Oops, something went wrong.
        
    
  
  Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
  This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
  Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
  Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
  Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
  You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
  Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
  This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
  Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
  Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
  Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
  
    
  
    
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
So I've spent a fair bit of time on pondering about how to best deal with this in the webhook builder:
object Tfunc arg and used the existingWithValidatorandWithDefaultermethods. That works but requires everyone to explicitly typeWebhookManagedByas the typing must be know during initial construction and can not be inferred during subsequent method calls. This has two drawbacks IMHO:CustomValidator/Defaulterwould have to type this toruntime.Objectwhich would likely cause further confusionWebhookForthat has the same signature as the currentWebhookMangagedByand made theWebhookManagedBynon-generic and return a*WebhookBuilder[runtime.Object]. This is great for existing code as it will all keep working, but once we remove this, it will be confusing to have different names for the controller and webhook builder IMHOWebhookManagedBygeneric, add an explicit type argument so type inference works and add successors toWithValidator/Defaulterin the form ofWithAdmissionValidator/Defaulter. This means a breaking change for everyone that should be pretty easy to understand and fix and avoid requiring to type this toruntime.Objectfor existing validators/defaulters. The main drawback of that is that the new names aren't as nice (happy to hear suggestions for that).All in all, the last option seemed the by far least bad one. What do you think?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Agree with all your points.
I see the following options
No absolutely strong opinions from my side, but if possible I would like to get to WithValidator/Defaulter long-term. I have a slight tendency for option 3. We already have to do a breaking change in this PR, maybe it's better to just get it over with and do slightly more breaking changes now then dragging this out over a few years. It will also give a clear hint to folks that they should just migrate to the typed versions which is super straightforward then (just start using types in Validator/Defaulter, it's not even necessary to use different methods on the builder for Validator/Defaulter). So slightly less effort to do the right migration (use types), slightly more effort to delay the migration and keep using CustomValidator/Defaulter.
Somewhat related. Do you know why
Defaulteris spelled witherandValidatorwithor? (probably don't want to change that though because it's not worth the additional confusion)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.
Okay, if we say that we want to end up with
WithValidator/Defaulterthen option 3 makes most sense, otherwise its just a back and forth. I guess we can add a codesnippet before/after to the changelog to make that at least easyThat is just the English language, one has an
ersuffix and the otherorThere 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.
Agree, sounds good