feat: replace instruction annotation with work suspendDispatching field #6043

vie-serendipity · 2025-01-14T03:27:17Z

What type of PR is this?

/kind deprecation
What this PR does / why we need it:
Replace propagation.karmada.io/instruction with suspendDispatching field. Annotation was just a temporary solution. With the native support of the work API, we should deprecate the use of annotations and utilize the work field instead.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #5386

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Users who are still using annotations to suspend work should migrate to the `suspendDispatching` field as soon as possible.

codecov-commenter · 2025-01-14T03:41:22Z

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 2.63158% with 37 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 48.09%. Comparing base (446dbe9) to head (85f3dca).
Report is 40 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/controllers/mcs/common.go	0.00%	10 Missing ⚠️
pkg/controllers/mcs/service_export_controller.go	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
pkg/util/helper/predicate.go	0.00%	6 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
cmd/agent/app/agent.go	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
cmd/controller-manager/app/controllermanager.go	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
pkg/util/helper/work.go	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...clusterservice/endpointslice_collect_controller.go	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
.../controllers/multiclusterservice/mcs_controller.go	0.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6043      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   48.35%   48.09%   -0.26%     
==========================================
  Files         666      669       +3     
  Lines       54831    55186     +355     
==========================================
+ Hits        26513    26543      +30     
- Misses      26599    26916     +317     
- Partials     1719     1727       +8

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`48.09% <2.63%> (-0.26%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

chaosi-zju · 2025-01-14T10:09:03Z

/retest

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2025-02-06T07:24:04Z

Thanks~
/assign

XiShanYongYe-Chang

Thanks a lot~

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2025-02-06T07:37:15Z

pkg/util/work.go

+)
+
+// GetWorkSuspendDispatching will get suspendDispatching field from work spec
+func GetWorkSuspendDispatching(spec *workv1alpha1.WorkSpec) []string {


How about moving this function to the pkg/util/helper/work.go file?

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2025-02-06T08:24:06Z

pkg/controllers/mcs/common.go

+)
+
+const (
+	workKeyIndex = "workSpec.suspendDispatching"


How about renaming this to workSuspendDispatchdingIndex?

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2025-02-06T08:52:44Z

pkg/util/constants.go

@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ const (
 	//
 	// Note: This instruction is intended to set on Work objects to indicate the Work should be ignored by
 	// execution controller. The instruction maybe deprecated once we extend the Work API and no other scenario want this.
-	PropagationInstruction = "propagation.karmada.io/instruction"
+	PropagationInstruction = "propagation.karmada.io/instruction" // deprecated


There are still some places in the warehouse that use the variable. Should we replace all the places that use the variable?

Now I think we should retain the handling of this label. I just replaced the usage of PropagationInstruction with suspendDispatching in the repository when creating new resources, ensuring NO new resources with the PropagationInstruction label are created. And we can remove it entirely later.

Thanks for the explanation, I think we can clean them up in the next version(v1.14).

By the way, can we mark the PropagationInstruction and the related value to be deprecated like this:

// Deprecated PropagationInstruction = "propagation.karmada.io/instruction"

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2025-02-06T08:55:35Z

pkg/controllers/mcs/service_export_controller.go

-			util.ServiceNamespaceLabel: endpointSlice.GetNamespace(),
-			util.ServiceNameLabel:      endpointSlice.GetLabels()[discoveryv1.LabelServiceName],
-			// indicate the Work should be not propagated since it's collected resource.
-			util.PropagationInstruction:          util.PropagationInstructionSuppressed,


Can we delete this variable in the next version to consider compatibility?

I think removing this tag won't cause compatibility issues, because I've retained the handling logic for PropagationInstruction, which will still work as intended.

Yes, you are right!

karmada-bot · 2025-02-06T09:39:31Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from xishanyongye-chang. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

fix: get false when suspendDispatching is nil fix: ignore work events when suspendDispatching is true feat: rename workIndex and mv GetWorkSuspendDispatching to helper feat: modify the style of Deprecated Signed-off-by: vie-serendipity <[email protected]>

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2025-02-07T08:36:44Z

pkg/controllers/mcs/common.go

+)
+
+const (
+	workSuspendDispatchdingIndex = "workSpec.suspendDispatching"


Sorry I made a mistake in my previous comment, a typo Dispatchding -> Dispatching

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2025-02-07T08:54:28Z

pkg/util/helper/predicate.go

+		if IsWorkSuspendDispatching(obj) {
+			klog.V(5).Infof("Ignored Work(%s/%s) %s event as dispatching is suspended.", obj.Namespace, obj.Name, eventType)
+			return false
+		}


Should such a judgment be added to other places where judgment util.GetLabelValue(obj.Labels, util.PropagationInstruction) == util.PropagationInstructionSuppressed is used, because for users who directly use this version (v1.13), the work in the environment will not have the propagation.karmada.io/instruction label.

For example:

--- a/pkg/controllers/ctrlutil/work.go +++ b/pkg/controllers/ctrlutil/work.go @@ -36,7 +36,8 @@ import ( // CreateOrUpdateWork creates a Work object if not exist, or updates if it already exists. func CreateOrUpdateWork(ctx context.Context, client client.Client, workMeta metav1.ObjectMeta, resource *unstructured.Unstructured, options ...WorkOption) error { - if workMeta.Labels[util.PropagationInstruction] != util.PropagationInstructionSuppressed { + if workMeta.Labels[util.PropagationInstruction] != util.PropagationInstructionSuppressed || + IsWorkSuspendDispatching(obj) {

karmada-bot added the kind/deprecation Categorizes issue or PR as related to a feature/enhancement marked for deprecation. label Jan 14, 2025

karmada-bot requested review from chaunceyjiang, lonelyCZ and whitewindmills January 14, 2025 03:27

karmada-bot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 14, 2025

vie-serendipity force-pushed the feat/suspend branch from 982414c to 2f2ae0a Compare January 14, 2025 06:32

chaosi-zju mentioned this pull request Jan 14, 2025

CI failed: Error: common chart not found in repo https://charts.bitnami.com/bitnami #6046

Closed

karmada-bot assigned XiShanYongYe-Chang Feb 6, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang reviewed Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

vie-serendipity force-pushed the feat/suspend branch from 59e2e2b to 85f3dca Compare February 7, 2025 01:50

XiShanYongYe-Chang reviewed Feb 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: replace instruction annotation with work suspendDispatching field #6043

feat: replace instruction annotation with work suspendDispatching field #6043

vie-serendipity commented Jan 14, 2025

codecov-commenter commented Jan 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

chaosi-zju commented Jan 14, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Feb 6, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang left a comment

XiShanYongYe-Chang Feb 6, 2025

vie-serendipity Feb 6, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang Feb 6, 2025

vie-serendipity Feb 6, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang Feb 6, 2025

vie-serendipity Feb 6, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang Feb 6, 2025

vie-serendipity Feb 7, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang Feb 6, 2025

vie-serendipity Feb 6, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang Feb 6, 2025

karmada-bot commented Feb 6, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang Feb 7, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang Feb 7, 2025

feat: replace instruction annotation with work suspendDispatching field #6043

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: replace instruction annotation with work suspendDispatching field #6043

Conversation

vie-serendipity commented Jan 14, 2025

codecov-commenter commented Jan 14, 2025 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

chaosi-zju commented Jan 14, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Feb 6, 2025

XiShanYongYe-Chang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

karmada-bot commented Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

codecov-commenter commented Jan 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading