-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
Multi-Cluster: Adds v1alpha1 API Types and Docs #1658
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for gateway-api-inference-extension ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Hold until #1374 is merged. /hold |
// | ||
// Controllers MAY raise this condition with other reasons, but should | ||
// prefer to use the reasons listed above to improve interoperability. | ||
InferencePoolConditionExported InferencePoolConditionType = "Exported" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's the value for a non-exported InferencePool? "Invalid" doesn't sound right IMO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah +1, Added some suggested reasons above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here are a few other options we can take:
- Do not define the reason at this time and leave it up to the implementation to surface.
- Rename "Invalid" to "Unknown" or "ApplyFailed" and require a message to be set with additional details.
- Proceed with https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api-inference-extension/pull/1658/files#r2383650354 recommendations.
WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Commit f0fbeb9 proceeds with option 3 above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like the recommendations in 3. If the InferencePool has not been exported, then that should be clear
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@keithmattix commit f0fbeb9 proceeds with option 3, PTAL.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @danehans! This mostly LGTM. I'm going to be OOO for the next few days but please feel free to go ahead and move forward with this once my comments are resolved. @bexxmodd can also help with the reviews here. I'm sure we'll still have some things to tweak after we merge this, but I'd rather get something in soon so we can start on the implementation side.
// | ||
// Controllers MAY raise this condition with other reasons, but should | ||
// prefer to use the reasons listed above to improve interoperability. | ||
InferencePoolConditionExported InferencePoolConditionType = "Exported" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah +1, Added some suggested reasons above.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: danehans, robscott 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
f0fbeb9
to
ac3dc45
Compare
} | ||
|
||
// InferencePoolImportStatus defines the observed state of the InferencePoolImport. | ||
type InferencePoolImportStatus struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we have some field like this in here? https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/blob/530c1ee46e0d851d369810e4500f0339c40d8aa1/apis/v1/gateway_types.go#L1022
This can be useful for some implementation specific metadata propagation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bexxmodd adding ^ would modify the proposal. I can potentially see differing views on how this metadata should be propagated. If this important to you, can you create an issue or link it to here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SG. I'll create a new issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bexxmodd when you have a moment, please link the issue here and resolve this conversation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/link #1674
Signed-off-by: Daneyon Hansen <daneyon.hansen@solo.io>
ac3dc45
to
b048b79
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm - thanks Daneyon!
/lgtm |
Signed-off-by: Daneyon Hansen <daneyon.hansen@solo.io>
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind documentation
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1654
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: