- 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 6 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Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline, and old review comments may become outdated.
+153 −159
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 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 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 T
func arg and used the existingWithValidator
andWithDefaulter
methods. That works but requires everyone to explicitly typeWebhookManagedBy
as the typing must be know during initial construction and can not be inferred during subsequent method calls. This has two drawbacks IMHO:CustomValidator/Defaulter
would have to type this toruntime.Object
which would likely cause further confusionWebhookFor
that has the same signature as the currentWebhookMangagedBy
and made theWebhookManagedBy
non-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 IMHOWebhookManagedBy
generic, add an explicit type argument so type inference works and add successors toWithValidator/Defaulter
in 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.Object
for 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
Defaulter
is spelled wither
andValidator
withor
? (probably don't want to change that though because it's not worth the additional confusion)