DRA API: implement ResourceClaim strategy for DRADeviceTaints by pohly · Pull Request #132927 · kubernetes/kubernetes

pohly · 2025-07-14T13:12:08Z

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Dropping the disabled "Tolerations" field in the ResourceClaim API was missing.

This wasn't possible at the time of implementing the Device Taints API, at least not completely, because it depended on prioritized list being merged first, to cover the "FirstAvailable" field introduced together with that feature.

That the device taints PR got merged despite this gap was an oversight. The confusing TODO probably didn't help: the entire implementation was missing (or got lost due to a bad merge conflict resolution, not sure anymore) and it referenced the wrong other feature (partitionable devices doesn't affect ResourceClaim).

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

KEP: kubernetes/enhancements#5055

Special notes for your reviewer:

This allowed clients to set the field when it should have been dropped. It simply had no effect. Clients can keep updating such objects because of the "feature in use" check, as long as the spec remains immutable.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

DRA API: the "tolerations" field in exact and sub requests now gets dropped properly when the DRADeviceTaints API is disabled.

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-07-14T13:12:17Z

This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

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

Details

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-sigs/prow repository.

mortent · 2025-07-14T16:24:42Z

 // dropDisabledFields removes fields which are covered by a feature gate.
 func dropDisabledFields(newClaim, oldClaim *resource.ResourceClaim) {
 	dropDisabledDRAPrioritizedListFields(newClaim, oldClaim)
+	dropDisabledDRADeviceTaintsFields(newClaim, oldClaim) // Intentionally after dropDisabledDRAPrioritizedListFields to avoid iterating over FirstAvailable slice which needs to be dropped.


Don't we need the same functionality in ResourceClaimTemplate?

Yes. Will add it there, too. Good catch!

For some reason, ResourceClaimTemplate update testing was less complete than the update testing of ResourceClaim. Fixed by copying the entire TestStrategyUpdate over and switching it to testing ResourceClaimTemplates.

I kept the existing test, to ensure that I am not removing coverage.

mortent · 2025-07-14T16:26:17Z

 				}
 			},
 		},
+		"drop-fields-device-taints": {


Should we have tests here that covers interaction with the PrioritizedList feature?

mortent · 2025-07-14T16:27:24Z

 				}
 			},
 		},
+		"drop-fields-device-taints-in-prioritized-list": {


Should we have some tests that don't include PrioritizedList?

Yes. Now I am questioning my own sanity. I could have sworn that I had added them.

pohly · 2025-07-17T08:12:07Z

/assign @mortent

Please check again, it should be complete now.

pohly · 2025-08-18T13:41:10Z

This fell through the cracks because other PRs were more important and both @mortent and I were on vacation.

Shall we still try to get this included in v1.34? It's "only" for an alpha feature, but getting the API right is important.

/assign @liggitt

liggitt · 2025-08-19T14:40:19Z

Shall we still try to get this included in v1.34? It's "only" for an alpha feature, but getting the API right is important.

/assign @liggitt

I just saw this, paging in context ... this is fixing clearing an alpha field which was added in 1.33 in #130447?

I think it's too late for any non-release-blocking changes in 1.34, and if 1.33 already released without this, I don't think we'd consider it release-blocking for 1.34 either.

liggitt · 2025-08-19T15:40:29Z

/milestone v1.35

pohly · 2025-09-15T07:14:26Z

/test pull-kubernetes-node-e2e-containerd-2-0-dra-alpha-beta-features

We had a test flake with some tests not cleaning up properly after themselves, should be fixed now (
#134047).

liggitt · 2025-09-24T16:17:49Z

Thanks for the update, @tallclair will take a pass and then we can get this in

Prajyot-Parab · 2025-10-14T04:23:16Z

Hello @pohly @tallclair @liggitt @mortent
This PR has not been updated for 3 weeks, so I'd like to check what's the status. If there's anything we can do, please let us know.
The code freeze is starting Friday 7th November 2025, 12:00 UTC (about 3 weeks from now). Please make sure the PR has both lgtm and approved labels before the code freeze. Thanks!

…or DRADeviceTaints This wasn't possible at the time of implementing the Device Taints API, at least not completely, because it depended on prioritized list being merged first, to cover the "FirstAvailable" field introduced together with that feature. That the device taints PR got merged despite this gap was an oversight. The confusing TODO probably didn't help: the entire implementation was missing (or got lost due to a bad merge conflict resolution, not sure anymore) and it referenced the wrong other feature (partitionable devices doesn't affect ResourceClaim). For some reason, ResourceClaimTemplate update testing was less complete than the update testing of ResourceClaim. Fixed by copying the entire TestStrategyUpdate over and switching it to testing ResourceClaimTemplates.

tallclair

lgtm, just a nit about the file path.

…mTemplate The spec is the same in both, so those fields are now handled by common code. For ResourceClaim spec updates, the "in use" check now only considers the spec. Theoretically some features could be in use in an old ResourceClaim status and not in use in the spec. This can only occur in a spec update, which is currently prevented because the entire spec is immutable. Even if it was allowed, preventing adding disabled fields to the spec is the right thing to do regardless of what may have ended up in the status earlier.

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-10-21T10:44:50Z

@pohly: The following test 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-kubernetes-linter-hints	`da80b55`	link	false	`/test pull-kubernetes-linter-hints`

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.

Details

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

pohly · 2025-10-21T12:05:02Z

/skip

"fake.NewSimpleClientset is deprecated" - not sure whether I really should care. It's good enough here.

liggitt · 2025-10-21T12:34:55Z

/lgtm
/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-10-21T12:35:02Z

LGTM label has been added.

Details

Git tree hash: 4515ae67cd2d34590c91b4f599dc8a1854a7c0bd

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-10-21T12:35:10Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: liggitt, pohly

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~pkg/api/OWNERS~~ [liggitt]
~~pkg/registry/OWNERS~~ [liggitt]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

liggitt · 2025-10-21T12:35:17Z

/cla

k8s-ci-robot added needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Jul 14, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from bart0sh and klueska July 14, 2025 13:12

k8s-ci-robot added the wg/device-management Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to WG Device Management. label Jul 14, 2025

pohly mentioned this pull request Jul 14, 2025

Implement DRA Device Binding Conditions (KEP-5007) #130160

Merged

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. label Jul 14, 2025

github-project-automation Bot added this to Dynamic Resource Allocation Jul 14, 2025

github-project-automation Bot moved this to 🆕 New in Dynamic Resource Allocation Jul 14, 2025

mortent reviewed Jul 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

pohly force-pushed the dra-api-strategy-todo branch from edeec84 to fd7c1c2 Compare July 15, 2025 09:14

k8s-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 15, 2025

pohly moved this from 🆕 New to 👀 In review in Dynamic Resource Allocation Jul 15, 2025

k8s-ci-robot assigned mortent Jul 17, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 30, 2025

pohly force-pushed the dra-api-strategy-todo branch from fd7c1c2 to 9fb7bbf Compare August 18, 2025 13:39

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 18, 2025

k8s-ci-robot assigned liggitt Aug 18, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.35 milestone Aug 19, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 12, 2025

liggitt moved this from Changes requested to In progress in API Reviews Sep 24, 2025

tico88612 added this to [sig-release] Bug Triage Oct 12, 2025

tico88612 moved this to Pending inclusion in [sig-release] Bug Triage Oct 12, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 13, 2025

Prajyot-Parab moved this from Pending inclusion to Tracked in [sig-release] Bug Triage Oct 14, 2025

pohly force-pushed the dra-api-strategy-todo branch from c812bbd to b556bbe Compare October 15, 2025 13:45

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 15, 2025

tallclair reviewed Oct 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread pkg/api/resourceclaimspec/util.go

pohly force-pushed the dra-api-strategy-todo branch from b556bbe to da80b55 Compare October 21, 2025 10:23

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 21, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 21, 2025

liggitt added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. and removed cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Oct 21, 2025

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 3eeb838 into kubernetes:master Oct 21, 2025
20 checks passed

github-project-automation Bot moved this from Tracked to Done in [sig-release] Bug Triage Oct 21, 2025

liggitt moved this from In progress to API review completed, 1.35 in API Reviews Oct 23, 2025

pohly moved this from 👀 In review to ✅ Done in Dynamic Resource Allocation Oct 24, 2025

Conversation

pohly commented Jul 14, 2025

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 14, 2025

Uh oh!

mortent Jul 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pohly Jul 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pohly Jul 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mortent Jul 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pohly Jul 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mortent Jul 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pohly Jul 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pohly commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

pohly commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

liggitt commented Aug 19, 2025

Uh oh!

liggitt commented Aug 19, 2025

Uh oh!

pohly commented Sep 15, 2025

Uh oh!

liggitt commented Sep 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Prajyot-Parab commented Oct 14, 2025

Uh oh!

tallclair left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pohly commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

liggitt commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

liggitt commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

9 participants

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading