docs: update declarative validation to reflect updated KEP-5073 lifecycle#54698
Conversation
ccf4084 to
8c8158d
Compare
✅ Pull request preview available for checkingBuilt without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
✅ Pull request preview available for checkingBuilt without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
8c8158d to
70d80e8
Compare
c0797a5 to
ed23747
Compare
|
|
||
| Administrators can choose to explicitly enable `DeclarativeValidationTakeover=true` to make the *declarative* validation authoritative for migrated fields, typically after verifying stability in their environment (e.g., by monitoring the mismatch metric). | ||
| Administrators can explicitly disable the `DeclarativeValidationBeta` feature gate to force `+k8s:beta` validation rules back into shadow mode if unexpected validation behavior or regressions are observed. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Disabling declarative validation {#opt-out} | ||
|
|
||
| As a cluster administrator, you might consider disabling declarative validation whilst it is still beta, under specific circumstances: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're GA'ed right? I don't expect we disable the declarative validation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wrote this in a way that it also explained how the DeclartiveValidation feature
gate used to work in case a user is:
- on older version v1.33-v1.35
- using emulation version
I think its ok to write this and assume the user is using v1.36 without those constriants so I have now removed this assuming DeclarativeValidation is always on (GA'd) and removed any docs around when it is false
|
|
||
| To revert to only using hand-written validation (as used before Kubernetes v1.33), disable the `DeclarativeValidation` feature gate, for example | ||
| via command-line arguments: (`--feature-gates=DeclarativeValidation=false`). This also implicitly disables the effect of `DeclarativeValidationTakeover`. | ||
| via command-line arguments: (`--feature-gates=DeclarativeValidation=false`). This also implicitly disables the effect of `DeclarativeValidationBeta`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not an option unless in emulated version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wrote this in a way that it also explained how the DeclartiveValidation feature
gate used to work in case a user is:
- on older version v1.33-v1.35
- using emulation version
I think its ok to write this and assume the user is using v1.36 without those constriants so I have now removed this assuming DeclarativeValidation is always on (GA'd) and removed any docs around when it is false
349ceaf to
d155496
Compare
6feec3f to
5b5017b
Compare
…ycle process with +k8s:alpha and +k8s:beta
5b5017b to
1fed020
Compare
|
/lgtm |
|
LGTM label has been added. DetailsGit tree hash: ef332355b2dfb3a9299d470de36e570d9143208a |
|
I was hoping people would review kubernetes/contributor-site#667, and then we can update it for v1.36 I don't have enough insight to review kubernetes/contributor-site#667 myself. @aaron-prindle is there anything you ought to do to move kubernetes/contributor-site#667 forward? |
|
@lmktfy - I'm not sure I understand, these are two different changes. This PR updates the k/website tag catalog documentation with the new +k8s:alpha and +k8s:beta documentation. I am trying to get this in before the 3/31 date for docs freeze as k/website is subject to the freeze The goal of kubernetes/contributor-site#667 is to document everything for DV. That repo (k/contributor-site) and thus the PR is not restricted by the 4/8 docs freeze so hoping to get this in first. EDIT: docs freeze date is 4/8 not 3/31, updated |
|
I plan on updating all of the documentation in kubernetes/contributor-site#667 but I am trying to get this merged in time for the 4/8 docs freeze date EDIT: s/code-freeze/docs-freeze |
|
We can try to get this merged ahead of k/k code freeze, but I don't really see why that'd be important. What have I missed? |
|
The k/k code freeze doesn't apply to this repository, BTW. |
|
I updated the text there, I was refererring to the 4/8 docs freeze referenced here: |
|
Hello @aaron-prindle 👋! |
|
@AnshumanTripathi thanks for the information there. This has a technical review from @yongruilin related to the content and now I am hoping to get a docs review /lgtm /approve the docs changes here. Can you help direct a reviewer to this PR? Thanks! |
|
/assign @katcosgrove |
katcosgrove
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Small style guide issue
Co-authored-by: Kat Cosgrove <kat.cosgrove@gmail.com>
|
/lgtm |
|
LGTM label has been added. DetailsGit tree hash: 8ceca35ec01e0e704321f20ace34f497fe42217c |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: katcosgrove The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Description
This PR updates the declarative validation documentation to reflect the new
+k8s:alphaand+k8s:betashadow lifecycle semantic detailed in recent KEP-5073 updated:Summary
+k8s:declarativeValidationNativetag which has been superseded. (previously added in: docs: add stability level information to declarative validation tags #53556)+k8s:alphaand+k8s:betatag, which allows individual validations to run in shadow mode (collecting metrics while still allowing the existing hand-written code to be authoritative) and in authoritative mode respectively. This is used for safely migrating hand-written validation logic.isSubresourceandsupportsSubresourcethat previously referenced the deprecated native tag.NOTE: a previous version of this PR was submitted here - #54195. This PR was created to have the changes properly target the
dev-v1.36branch and that PR was closed.Issue
N/A
Closes: #
N/A