SMP with target does not respect patch GVK

[ciis0]

Describe the bug

When using an Strategic-Merge Patch in kustomization, the GVK from the patch is not used for limiting the target, e.g. labelSelector. Without GVK in the Kustomize does not accept the SMP.

This makes SMP's with target not very comfortable to use as it seems you have to duplicate the GVK in target to limit the patch to the wished GVK.

Files that can reproduce the issue

Using this patch:

patches:
  - patch: |-
      apiVersion: v1
      kind: Service
      metadata:
        name: any
        annotations:
          my-annotation: blubb
    target:
      labelSelector: my-label=foo

not only Services, but any resource matching the label selector will get the new annotation but all resource kinds.

see this reproducer repo: https://github.com/ciis0/kustomize-4710

Expected output

see reproducer

Actual output

see reproducer

Kustomize version

discovered with

{Version:kustomize/v4.5.4 GitCommit:cf3a452ddd6f83945d39d582243b8592ec627ae3 BuildDate:2022-03-28T23:12:45Z GoOs:linux GoArch:amd64}

verified to still be present in

{Version:kustomize/v4.5.5 GitCommit:daa3e5e2c2d3a4b8c94021a7384bfb06734bcd26 BuildDate:2022-05-20T20:25:40Z GoOs:linux GoArch:amd64}

Platform

Linux

Additional context

[k8s-ci-robot]

@ciis0: This issue is currently awaiting triage.

SIG CLI takes a lead on issue triage for this repo, but any Kubernetes member can accept issues by applying the triage/accepted label.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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.

[ciis0]

this seems to be the relevant place in code:

https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kustomize/blob/0c6e827ab81051a95bd061bd1cc917f70335ce86/api/internal/builtins/PatchTransformer.go#L88-L101

maybe an patchGVK: true option could be added to the patch or target selector to copy GVK from SMP to target selector?

[KnVerey]

I believe this is behaving as intended: either you specify the target field, in which case it is used to identify targets and the patch's identifier (group, version, kind, name, namespace) is ignored, or you don't, in which case the patch's own identifier is used for targeting.

/triage not-an-issue /kind support

[ciis0]

Ok, I see.

The docs are a little confusing here, because explictly they only tell name is ignored when target is set.

Thus I always have to write my SMPs with labelSelectors like this?

patches:
  - patch: |-
      apiVersion: route.openshift.io/v1
      kind: Route
      metadata:
        name: any
        annotations:
          haproxy.router.openshift.io/timeout: 5m
    target:
      group: route.openshift.io
      version: v1
      kind: Route
      labelSelector: label=value

not happy about that duplication of GVK in Patch and Target... ^^

[k8s-triage-robot]

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

This bot triages issues and PRs 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 or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Mark this issue or PR as rotten with /lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

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

/lifecycle stale

[criztovyl]

maybe an patchGVK: true option could be added to the patch or target selector to copy GVK from SMP to target selector?

would you accept a PR for that?

[k8s-triage-robot]

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

This bot triages issues and PRs 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 or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

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

/lifecycle rotten

[k8s-triage-robot]

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

This bot triages 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:

• Reopen this issue with /reopen
• Mark this issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

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

/close not-planned

[k8s-ci-robot]

@k8s-triage-robot: Closing this issue, marking it as "Not Planned".

In response to this:

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

This bot triages 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:

• Reopen this issue with /reopen
• Mark this issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

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

/close not-planned

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.