kubernetes-sigs
[WIP] ✨ Add support for Ignition v3.x
What this PR does / why we need it:
Implements Ignition v3.x
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #9157
Hi @bengentil. 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/test-infra repository.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign killianmuldoon for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
Hi @invidian,
To follow the slack conversation we had, I pushed this PR so we can discuss the implementation in details.
The PR is working but I have a few questions:
- I've added a new optional enum
Transpilerand aButaneConfig(similar toContainerLinuxConfig), is this how you pictured the switch between clc & butane? - The butane implementation is very similar to the clc implementation, I think some templating functions can be shared (
defaultTemplateFuncMap,mountpointName,templateYAMLIndent,parseOwner) in maybe a third package, for the rest I think it's way simpler and readable to keep 2 separate implementation, what do you think?
If I remember well when we implemented ingition we agreed that this was a temporary solution, while a more long-term solution for machine/node bootstrap should be worked out in order to avoid CABPK becoming unmaintainable, its API exploding, the main CAPI repo to pull too many dependency.
I think we should revive this discussion before moving forward with this PR, before adding complexity on top of a situation that we know already not ideal
cc @vincepri @CecileRobertMichon @enxebre @sbueringer @killianmuldoon @invidian @dongsupark @johananl
Yes @fabriziopandini, I think this is the relevant issue: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/issues/5294
PR needs rebase.
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.
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.
This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the PR is closed
You can:
- Mark this PR as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle stale - Close this PR with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
IMO we can freeze/close this PR for now. #5294 is WIP and AFAICT we can't advance this PR until that design proposal is settled.
@fabriziopandini @johananl @invidian @bengentil Ignition v2 has long standing issues as today, given that these APIs are still behind a feature gate, I can see why adding support for v3 going forward would be beneficial.
That said, I'd personally like to see a more cohesive approach to Ignition support within Cluster API, on the Machine object specifically.
That said, I'd personally like to see a more cohesive approach to Ignition support within Cluster API, on the Machine object specifically.
Yes, this is one of the core areas we're trying to address in #5294. I'm definitely taking that into account in my WIP design proposal. I'll share a draft as soon as I can.
@bengentil: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:
| Test name | Commit | Details | Required | Rerun command |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pull-cluster-api-verify-main | 7ffba84b7eda514b840a8a0e95099cffdc190dec | link | true | /test pull-cluster-api-verify-main |
| pull-cluster-api-build-main | 7ffba84b7eda514b840a8a0e95099cffdc190dec | link | true | /test pull-cluster-api-build-main |
| pull-cluster-api-e2e-informing-main | 7ffba84b7eda514b840a8a0e95099cffdc190dec | link | false | /test pull-cluster-api-e2e-informing-main |
| pull-cluster-api-e2e-main | 7ffba84b7eda514b840a8a0e95099cffdc190dec | link | true | /test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main |
| pull-cluster-api-test-main | 7ffba84b7eda514b840a8a0e95099cffdc190dec | link | true | /test pull-cluster-api-test-main |
| pull-cluster-api-e2e-blocking-main | 7ffba84b7eda514b840a8a0e95099cffdc190dec | link | true | /test pull-cluster-api-e2e-blocking-main |
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.
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.
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.
This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the PR is closed
You can:
- Mark this PR as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten - Close this PR with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle rotten
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the PR is closed
You can:
- Reopen this PR with
/reopen - Mark this PR as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close
@k8s-triage-robot: Closed this PR.
In response to this:
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied- After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied- After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the PR is closedYou can:
- Reopen this PR with
/reopen- Mark this PR as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten- Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close
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.
@bengentil: Reopened this PR.
In response to this:
/reopen
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.
This PR is currently missing an area label, which is used to identify the modified component when generating release notes.
Area labels can be added by org members by writing /area ${COMPONENT} in a comment
Please see the labels list for possible areas.
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.
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the PR is closed
You can:
- Reopen this PR with
/reopen - Mark this PR as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close
@k8s-triage-robot: Closed this PR.
In response to this:
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied- After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied- After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the PR is closedYou can:
- Reopen this PR with
/reopen- Mark this PR as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten- Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close
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.
@bengentil: Reopened this PR.
In response to this:
/reopen
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.
What is the current status of this PR? I'm not sure what the next steps are to make progress with this PR/topic.
I'm personally -1 to keep this PR open. The last commit is from Aug 2023; most important, by looking at the comments above it also seems there are open discussions to be addressed (a potentially a new proposal to be discussed according to https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/pull/9158#issuecomment-1904463205) before making further progress
I was waiting for progress on #5294 as there were concerns about the maintainability of the current CABPK implementation.
If we don't want to wait for the rework described in #5294 to gain ignition v3 (and FCOS) support, I can rebase and continue to work on this, otherwise we can close this PR.
Based on the latest discussion in the community I'm aware of about this topic, we should wait for progress on https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/issues/5294 first, but feel free to bring it up again in the office hours given that some time is passed now and folks might have different opinions
/close
@fabriziopandini: Closed this PR.
In response to this:
Based on the latest discussion in the community I'm aware of about this topic, we should wait for progress on https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/issues/5294 first, but feel free to bring it up again in the office hours given that some time is passed now and folks might have different opinions
/close
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.
Just for context, #5294 touches some very basic assumptions in the CAPI design and it will therefore likely take some time to agree on the design and finish the implementation.