✨ Cache-Backed Client: Support listOpts.Limit

[MadhavJivrajani]

Enabled list options in List implementation of Reader by the infromer cache in order to respect client.Limit if set.

Fix #1422

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @MadhavJivrajani. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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/test-infra repository.

[alvaroaleman]

@MadhavJivrajani can you please add a test for the Limit option?

[MadhavJivrajani]

Oh woops, sorry about that. I'll add it :)

Thanks!

[MadhavJivrajani]

@alvaroaleman I've added the test, could you PTAL?

[MadhavJivrajani]

@alvaroaleman could you PTAL?

[alvaroaleman]

/ok-to-test

[MadhavJivrajani]

Hey @alvaroaleman, the Limit option doesn't seem to be implemented for multi-namespace cached either, would it be okay to have a Limit option there as well? And if so is it okay if I try and implement it as part of this PR or should I open another issue for the same?

[alvaroaleman]

Hey @alvaroaleman, the Limit option doesn't seem to be implemented for multi-namespace cached either, would it be okay to have a Limit option there as well? And if so is it okay if I try and implement it as part of this PR or should I open another issue for the same?

It would be good to support it everywhere at once, if that isn't too much work.

[MadhavJivrajani]

Sure, no worries. 😄

[MadhavJivrajani]

Hey @alvaroaleman, could you PTAL?

[alvaroaleman]

@MadhavJivrajani thanks, sorry, this fell of my radar. The MultiNamespaceCache implementation is incorrect and just passes the tests by coincidence, because we only have one pod per namespace in the test scenario.

If you do something like this it instantly starts failing:

diff --git a/pkg/cache/cache_test.go b/pkg/cache/cache_test.go
index 9a41662a..6f0cdd39 100644
--- a/pkg/cache/cache_test.go
+++ b/pkg/cache/cache_test.go
@@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ func CacheTest(createCacheFunc func(config *rest.Config, opts cache.Options) (ca
                        knownPod2           client.Object
                        knownPod3           client.Object
                        knownPod4           client.Object
+                       knownPod99          client.Object
                )
 
                BeforeEach(func() {
@@ -119,6 +120,7 @@ func CacheTest(createCacheFunc func(config *rest.Config, opts cache.Options) (ca
                        Expect(err).NotTo(HaveOccurred())
                        // Includes restart policy since these objects are indexed on this field.
                        knownPod1 = createPod("test-pod-1", testNamespaceOne, kcorev1.RestartPolicyNever)
+                       knownPod99 = createPod("test-pod-99", testNamespaceOne, kcorev1.RestartPolicyNever)
                        knownPod2 = createPod("test-pod-2", testNamespaceTwo, kcorev1.RestartPolicyAlways)
                        knownPod3 = createPodWithLabels("test-pod-3", testNamespaceTwo, kcorev1.RestartPolicyOnFailure, map[string]string{"common-label": "common"})
                        knownPod4 = createPodWithLabels("test-pod-4", testNamespaceThree, kcorev1.RestartPolicyNever, map[string]string{"common-label": "common"})
@@ -149,6 +151,7 @@ func CacheTest(createCacheFunc func(config *rest.Config, opts cache.Options) (ca
                        deletePod(knownPod2)
                        deletePod(knownPod3)
                        deletePod(knownPod4)
+                       deletePod(knownPod99)
 
                        informerCacheCancel()
                })
@@ -295,7 +298,7 @@ func CacheTest(createCacheFunc func(config *rest.Config, opts cache.Options) (ca
                                        Expect(errors.IsTimeout(err)).To(BeTrue())
                                })
 
-                               It("should set the Limit option and limit number of objects to Limit when List is called", func() {
+                               FIt("should set the Limit option and limit number of objects to Limit when List is called", func() {
                                        By("setting the Limit option to 1")
                                        opts := &client.ListOptions{Limit: int64(1)}
                                        limitListOpts := &client.ListOptions{}

I am fine with both leaving it for a follow-up (but then, please disable the test for the multi-namespace cache) or fixing it here (I think it actually shouldn't be too hard).

If you fix it, please also change the tests to actually have a namespace with more than one object :)

[MadhavJivrajani]

If you fix it, please also change the tests to actually have a namespace with more than one object :)

Will do 👍🏻

[MadhavJivrajani]

/hold

[MadhavJivrajani]

@alvaroaleman any idea as to why it says:

testing: warning: no tests to run

For some reason, both ${MOD_OPT} and ${WHAT} in hack/test-all.sh seem to be empty?

[MadhavJivrajani]

/remove-hold

[alvaroaleman]

For some reason, both ${MOD_OPT} and ${WHAT} in hack/test-all.sh seem to be empty?

Lol, thanks for noticing. It seems we don't run any unittests in CI currently. I've opened #1503 for that (And we will not merge anything until that one is in).

[MadhavJivrajani]

/test pull-controller-runtime-test-master

[alvaroaleman]

/lgtm
/approve
Thanks!

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: alvaroaleman, MadhavJivrajani

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [alvaroaleman]

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