generated from kubernetes/kubernetes-template-project
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
Update API for 1.31 without partitionable model #36
Open
johnbelamaric
wants to merge
3
commits into
kubernetes-sigs:main
Choose a base branch
from
johnbelamaric:slice-131
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and old review comments may become outdated.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 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
I wouldn't include this. If we are ripping out the model that supports partitioning, I think we should should just go back to an explicit list of attributes per device.
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.
We need an extension point to insert the things we are debating in #20. That's the primary reason that is here. Adding the common things was just a way to make it have some meaning and not be a stub. With this, an old scheduler an see that there is an entry in this list, but when it unmarshals it, all the fields the scheduler is aware of are nil, so it knows "ooo, I should ignore this slice, I don't know what to do with it".
If we don't have this, then we need some other way for an older scheduler to know that "it doesn't understand this object".
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.
The alternative would be to have a discriminator field, like
SliceContent: "SimpleDevices"
or something. Then we would add new values to that so old schedulers know if they should handle the slice or not.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.
My current thinking is that we would not have any extension points directly in the device at this point. Instead every device will have the ability to point to one (and exactly one) DeviceShape/DeviceTemplate. That is what will have all of these extra bells and whistles. The device itself is still just a named list of attributes (and now capacities).
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.
Ok, that works for me. The thing is, we still need a way for old schedulers to know "this slice is not something I understand". So a "SliceType" discriminator perhaps? Or we have to have a field like I have done here, that has a one-of.