Automatic merge from submit-queue
fixup some apimachinery packages
Moves the meta/v1/validation to apimachinery (since its logically shared) and moves the funny `apimachinery/pkg/genericapiserver/openapi/common` to `apimachinery/pkg/openapi`.
@kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-misc
Automatic merge from submit-queue
add patch RS to deployment controller
Found in http://gcsweb.k8s.io/gcs/kubernetes-jenkins/logs/ci-kubernetes-e2e-gci-gce/2841/artifacts/bootstrap-e2e-master/, `RBAC DENY: user "system:serviceaccount:kube-system:deployment-controller" groups [system:serviceaccounts system:serviceaccounts:kube-system system:authenticated] cannot "patch" on "replicasets.extensions/" in namespace "e2e-tests-deployment-3rj5g"
`
@kubernetes/sig-auth-misc
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Give replicaset controller patch permission on pods
Needed for AdoptPod/ReleasePod
Fixes denials seen in autoscaling test log:
`RBAC DENY: user "system:serviceaccount:kube-system:replicaset-controller" groups [system:serviceaccounts system:serviceaccounts:kube-system system:authenticated] cannot "patch" on "pods./"`
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38592, 39949, 39946, 39882)
move api/errors to apimachinery
`pkg/api/errors` is a set of helpers around `meta/v1.Status` that help to create and interpret various apiserver errors. Things like `.NewNotFound` and `IsNotFound` pairings. This pull moves it into apimachinery for use by the clients and servers.
@smarterclayton @lavalamp First commit is the move plus minor fitting. Second commit is straight replace and generation.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38592, 39949, 39946, 39882)
genericapiserver: cut off pkg/apis/extensions and pkg/storage dependencies
Move BuildDefaultStorageFactory to kubeapiserver.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38592, 39949, 39946, 39882)
Remove fluentd buffers if fluentd is stuck
Fluentd now stores its buffers on disk for the resiliency. However, if buffer is corrupted, fluentd will be restarting forever.
Following change will make fluentd liveness probe delete buffers if fluentd is stuck for more than X minutes (15 by default).
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38592, 39949, 39946, 39882)
Add optional per-request context to restclient
**What this PR does / why we need it**: It adds per-request contexts to restclient's API, and uses them to add timeouts to all proxy calls in the e2e tests. An entire e2e shouldn't hang for hours on a single API call.
**Which issue this PR fixes**: #38305
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
This adds a feature to the low-level rest client request feature that is entirely optional. It doesn't affect any requests that don't use it. The api of the generated clients does not change, and they currently don't take advantage of this.
I intend to patch this in to 1.5 as a mostly test only change since it's not going to affect any controller, generated client, or user of the generated client.
cc @kubernetes/sig-api-machinery
cc @saad-ali
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39947, 39936, 39902, 39859, 39915)
Make api serialization test easier to follow
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
This PR makes the serialization test easier to understand and is informed by the recent experience of writing a new serialization test in SIG service catalog.
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39947, 39936, 39902, 39859, 39915)
don't lie about starting the controllers in the controller manager
We print started even if it didn't start.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39947, 39936, 39902, 39859, 39915)
genericapiserver: cut off certificates api dependency
By cutting off pkg/apis/certificates depenedency from pkg/util/certs.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Fix examples e2e permission check
Ref #39382
Follow-up from #39896
Permission check should be done within the e2e test namespace, not cluster-wide
Also improved RBAC audit logging to make the scope of the permission check clearer
Automatic merge from submit-queue
PodFitsPorts has been replaced by PodFitsHostPorts
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
in [defaults.go](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/plugin/pkg/scheduler/algorithmprovider/defaults/defaults.go)
> PodFitsPorts has been replaced by PodFitsHostPorts for better user understanding.
For backwards compatibility with 1.0, PodFitsPorts is registered as well.
So , I replaced PodFitsPorts with PodFitsHostPorts in scheduler examples
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39417, 39679)
Fix 2 `sucessfully` typos
**What this PR does / why we need it**: Only fixes two typos in comments/logging
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Don't blame DNS spec on Kubernetes requirement for lower-case DNS labels.
**What this PR does / why we need it**: #39635 was rejected because it wasn't clear to the author (me) that lower-case DNS labels are in fact a [Kubernetes requirement](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/39635#issuecomment-271404975) rather than from the [DNS RFC 1035](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt) or/and [DNS RFC 1123](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1123.txt).
**Special notes for your reviewer**: @thockin this is a first pass to make the error messages clearer about the fact that DNS specs are not to _blame_.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39609, 39105)
Stop running most unit tests outside of bazel.
Lets not duplicate our efforts. The two I still run here are the two we currently skip in bazel. We should fix those.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Remove sleep from DynamicProvisioner test.
The comment says that the sleep is there because of 10 minute PV controller
sync. The controller sync is now 15 seconds and it should be quick enough
to hide this in subsequent `WaitForPersistentVolumeDeleted(.. , 20*time.Minute)`
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38427, 39896, 39889, 39871, 39895)
Fix expected error text
I had initially coded the expected text to match what was coming out of stderr, which was wrong. This makes it match against what comes from stdout.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38427, 39896, 39889, 39871, 39895)
Conditionally write token file entries
Fixes#39863
We have a bigger problem with not knowing what is calling these functions, but this will at least tolerate callers that are not setting the envvars we expect
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38427, 39896, 39889, 39871, 39895)
Grant permissions to e2e examples test service account
ref #39382
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38427, 39896, 39889, 39871, 39895)
gitattributes for better reviews
Reviewable will ignore files marked as -diff.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Updated unit tests
@janetkuo updated the flaky unit test to have the same structure with regard to uncasting as the rest of the tests. ptal
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/conversion
cc @lavalamp @smarterclayton @wojtek-t @derekwaynecarr
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Only set empty list for list types
If List() impls return non-list objects (like Status objects), we shouldn't try to set them to an empty list
follow up to #39834
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/master
cc @lavalamp @nikhiljindal @mikedanese @derekwaynecarr
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/storage
cc @lavalamp @timothysc @liggitt @xiang90 @wojtek-t
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
