set spec.preserveUnknownFields to false for Webhook conversion

[liusy182]

This is to fix error: "spec.conversion.strategy: Invalid value: "Webhook": must be None if spec.preserveUnknownFields is true". The error occurs while working on the webhook example in kubebook.

The same error was mentioned in #1006. Although this is a closed ticket, some people have encountered similar failure very recently in a different issue.

The root cause of the error is the 2 conflicting specs that are not properly specified, according to documentation:

• spec.preserveUnknownFields defaults to true for v1beta.

• CustomResourceConversion requires the value of spec.preserveUnknownFields to be false when the strategy is Webhook .

This PR provides a fix by setting spec.preserveUnknownFields to false.

Tested with examples provided by kubebook.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please follow instructions at https://git.k8s.io/community/CLA.md#the-contributor-license-agreement to sign the CLA.

It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.

---

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please sign in with your organization's credentials at https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to be authorized.
• If you have done the above and are still having issues with the CLA being reported as unsigned, please log a ticket with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk: https://support.linuxfoundation.org/
• Should you encounter any issues with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk, send a message to the backup e-mail support address at: login-issues@jira.linuxfoundation.org

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @liusy182!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/kubebuilder 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/kubebuilder has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @liusy182. 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.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: liusy182
To complete the pull request process, please assign droot
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @droot in a comment when ready.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[liusy182]

Hi! I realize that the samples in the docs folder might need update as well. Since this is somewhat unrelated to the code generation, is the preference to have them in the same PR or as a separate issue?

[pwittrock]

/ok-to-test

[estroz]

This change should only be applied to the v3 plugin, since it changes behavior significantly and v2 is frozen.

[camilamacedo86]

/hold

Really nice to see your contribution. However, we can just apply changes to v3 as @estroz described above.
Also, I am not sure if we should fix this by setting it. We might just need to migrate to v1 api as described in: #1065

Also, see : #933

[liusy182]

Thanks! please let me know if we want to apply this to V3 and I can update that. Otherwise feel free to close the PR if migration is the way to go.

[camilamacedo86]

Hi @liusy182,

IMO: What we need to do is: update the v3 plugin only to scaffold by default CRD and Webhooks using the API v1. In this way, this field will no longer be required and as pre-requisites, the v3-alpha tutorials will require cluster version >= 0.16. Is it make sense? Would like to work on it?

[liusy182]

sure i can give a try on that.

[estroz]

The switch to a v1 CRD webhook patch needs to be made alongside defaulting CRD version to v1 and changing all other scaffolded manifests related to CRDs to v1. It doesn't make sense to have some kustomize resources be v1beta1 while others are v1.

[camilamacedo86]

/hold cancel

[camilamacedo86]

@liusy182

It shows great now. Just a few nits are required for we get this one merge.

• squash the commits
• Also, we need here update the Makefile to generate the CRD's with v1 which is simple. here needs to be CRD_OPTIONS ?= "crd:crdVersions=v1"
• update the pr title to reflect the change properly (it will be in the git log): E.g feat: upgrade webhooks and crds api to v1 (valid only for v3)
• update the first comment and put that it closes: Closes: #1065

Then, if you wish, I think would be ok we have another pr to apply the field with false as bugfix: set spec.preserveUnknownFields to false for Webhook conversion (only v2) to close: #933 only for v2 plugin.

Please, let me know if you need a help with and feel free to ping me when you finish.

[estroz]

This PR either needs a changes to make all CRD patches v1, or a follow-up. I’m fine with the latter.

@camilamacedo86 kubernetes-sigs/controller-tools#468 has been merged so we can avoid explicitly setting default version to v1 in the Makefile.

[camilamacedo86]

@estroz Great news kubernetes-sigs/controller-tools#468 👍

but we need to wait for it be released. So, just to sum up;

What is a blocker for we get this PR merged?

• squash the commits
• update the pr title to reflect the change properly (it will be in the git log): E.g feat: upgrade webhooks api to v1 (valid only for v3)

What still be required to get done? (can be done here or in a follow up)

• Also, we need here update the Makefile to generate the CRD's with v1 which is simple. here need to be CRD_OPTIONS ?= "crd:crdVersions=v1" with a todo: in the code point out that it should be removed when ⚠️ pkg/crd: default CRD version to v1 controller-tools#468 be in the next release.

[estroz]

On second thought, do we still want to support v1beta1 CRDs for those targeting older clusters? If so we should parameterize CRD version like init --webhook-version, create api --crd-version, as @camilamacedo86 has suggested previously.

/cc @DirectXMan12 @pwittrock

/hold

[estroz]

This PR is superseded by #1644

[k8s-ci-robot]

@liusy182: PR needs rebase.

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.

[estroz]

/close

[k8s-ci-robot]

@estroz: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

/close

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.