generated from kubernetes/kubernetes-template-project
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 268
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
KEP-3122: Expose Flavors in LocalQueue Status.
- Loading branch information
1 parent
f920c18
commit de22c76
Showing
2 changed files
with
323 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
295 changes: 295 additions & 0 deletions
295
keps/3122-expose-flavors-in-localqueue-status/README.md
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,295 @@ | ||
| # KEP-3122: Expose Flavors in LocalQueue Status | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| This is the title of your KEP. Keep it short, simple, and descriptive. A good | ||
| title can help communicate what the KEP is and should be considered as part of | ||
| any review. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| A table of contents is helpful for quickly jumping to sections of a KEP and for | ||
| highlighting any additional information provided beyond the standard KEP | ||
| template. | ||
| Ensure the TOC is wrapped with | ||
| <code><!-- toc --&rt;<!-- /toc --&rt;</code> | ||
| tags, and then generate with `hack/update-toc.sh`. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- toc --> | ||
| - [Summary](#summary) | ||
| - [Motivation](#motivation) | ||
| - [Goals](#goals) | ||
| - [Non-Goals](#non-goals) | ||
| - [Proposal](#proposal) | ||
| - [User Stories (Optional)](#user-stories-optional) | ||
| - [Story 1](#story-1) | ||
| - [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional) | ||
| - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations) | ||
| - [Design Details](#design-details) | ||
| - [Test Plan](#test-plan) | ||
| - [Prerequisite testing updates](#prerequisite-testing-updates) | ||
| - [Unit Tests](#unit-tests) | ||
| - [Integration tests](#integration-tests) | ||
| - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria) | ||
| - [Implementation History](#implementation-history) | ||
| - [Drawbacks](#drawbacks) | ||
| - [Alternatives](#alternatives) | ||
| <!-- /toc --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Summary | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| This section is incredibly important for producing high-quality, user-focused | ||
| documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap. It should be | ||
| possible to collect this information before implementation begins, in order to | ||
| avoid requiring implementors to split their attention between writing release | ||
| notes and implementing the feature itself. KEP editors and SIG Docs | ||
| should help to ensure that the tone and content of the `Summary` section is | ||
| useful for a wide audience. | ||
| A good summary is probably at least a paragraph in length. | ||
| Both in this section and below, follow the guidelines of the [documentation | ||
| style guide]. In particular, wrap lines to a reasonable length, to make it | ||
| easier for reviewers to cite specific portions, and to minimize diff churn on | ||
| updates. | ||
| [documentation style guide]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/guide/style-guide.md | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| This KEP introduces a new status field in LocalQueue, allowing users to see | ||
| all currently available ResourceFlavors in the LocalQueue. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals, and non-goals of | ||
| this KEP. Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users. The | ||
| motivation section can optionally provide links to [experience reports] to | ||
| demonstrate the interest in a KEP within the wider Kubernetes community. | ||
| [experience reports]: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/ExperienceReports | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| Currently, users without RBAC access to ResourceFlavors cannot view the list | ||
| of available flavors. Depending on the RBAC rules, users might also lack read | ||
| access to ClusterQueues. Providing users with information about the available | ||
| flavors is useful, as it gives them an idea of the capabilities provided by | ||
| a LocalQueue (e.g., a flavor might include newer GPUs). | ||
|
|
||
| ### Goals | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| List the specific goals of the KEP. What is it trying to achieve? How will we | ||
| know that this has succeeded? | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| - Provide a possibility to see all currently available ResourceFlavors in | ||
| the LocalQueue. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Non-Goals | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| What is out of scope for this KEP? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion | ||
| and make progress. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| - Verify that the ResourceFlavors exist and show only the existing flavors. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Proposal | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| This is where we get down to the specifics of what the proposal actually is. | ||
| This should have enough detail that reviewers can understand exactly what | ||
| you're proposing, but should not include things like API designs or | ||
| implementation. What is the desired outcome and how do we measure success?. | ||
| The "Design Details" section below is for the real | ||
| nitty-gritty. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| Introduce a new status field `availableFlavorsInClusterQueue` in LocalQueue | ||
| that will be updated when ClusterQueue flavors are modified. | ||
|
|
||
| ### User Stories (Optional) | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Detail the things that people will be able to do if this KEP is implemented. | ||
| Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of | ||
| the system. The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting | ||
| bogged down. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| #### Story 1 | ||
|
|
||
| As a user I want to see the list of all ResourceFlavors available in each LocalQueue. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional) | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| What are the caveats to the proposal? | ||
| What are some important details that didn't come across above? | ||
| Go in to as much detail as necessary here. | ||
| This might be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they relate. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ### Risks and Mitigations | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| What are the risks of this proposal, and how do we mitigate? Think broadly. | ||
| For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger | ||
| Kubernetes ecosystem. | ||
| How will security be reviewed, and by whom? | ||
| How will UX be reviewed, and by whom? | ||
| Consider including folks who also work outside the SIG or subproject. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Design Details | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your | ||
| change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always | ||
| required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your | ||
| proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| Modify `LocalQueueStatus` API object: | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| // LocalQueueStatus defines the observed state of LocalQueue | ||
| type LocalQueueStatus struct { | ||
| [...] | ||
| // availableFlavorsInClusterQueue lists all currently available ResourceFlavors | ||
| // in specified ClusterQueue. | ||
| // | ||
| // +listType=set | ||
| // +optional | ||
| AvailableFlavorsInClusterQueue []ResourceFlavorReference `json:"availableFlavorsInClusterQueue,omitempty"` | ||
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Modify `LocalQueueUsageStats` object: | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| type LocalQueueUsageStats struct { | ||
| [...] | ||
| AvailableFlavorsInClusterQueue []kueue.ResourceFlavorReference | ||
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Get available `Flavors` from `cqImpl.ResourceGroups` in `cache.LocalQueueUsage(...)` | ||
| method and update `AvailableFlavorsInClusterQueue` field on `UpdateStatusIfChanged(...)` | ||
| on each LocalQueue reconcile when it was updated. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Test Plan | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| **Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.* | ||
| The goal is to ensure that we don't accept enhancements with inadequate testing. | ||
| All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage | ||
| expectations). Please adhere to the [Kubernetes testing guidelines][testing-guidelines] | ||
| when drafting this test plan. | ||
| [testing-guidelines]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| [x] I/we understand the owners of the involved components may require updates to | ||
| existing tests to make this code solid enough prior to committing the changes necessary | ||
| to implement this enhancement. | ||
|
|
||
| ##### Prerequisite testing updates | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Based on reviewers feedback describe what additional tests need to be added prior | ||
| implementing this enhancement to ensure the enhancements have also solid foundations. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| None. | ||
|
|
||
| #### Unit Tests | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| In principle every added code should have complete unit test coverage, so providing | ||
| the exact set of tests will not bring additional value. | ||
| However, if complete unit test coverage is not possible, explain the reason of it | ||
| together with explanation why this is acceptable. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Additionally, try to enumerate the core package you will be touching | ||
| to implement this enhancement and provide the current unit coverage for those | ||
| in the form of: | ||
| - <package>: <date> - <current test coverage> | ||
| This can inform certain test coverage improvements that we want to do before | ||
| extending the production code to implement this enhancement. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| Existing unit tests should be updated to tests whether the new data are correctly | ||
| passed and applied on CRD. | ||
|
|
||
| #### Integration tests | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement. | ||
| After the implementation PR is merged, add the names of the tests here. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| Existing integration tests should be updated to tests whether the new data are correctly | ||
| passed and applied on CRD. Change will need on the `localqueue_controller_test.go`. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Graduation Criteria | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Clearly define what it means for the feature to be implemented and | ||
| considered stable. | ||
| If the feature you are introducing has high complexity, consider adding graduation | ||
| milestones with these graduation criteria: | ||
| - [Maturity levels (`alpha`, `beta`, `stable`)][maturity-levels] | ||
| - [Feature gate][feature gate] lifecycle | ||
| - [Deprecation policy][deprecation-policy] | ||
| [feature gate]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md | ||
| [maturity-levels]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api_changes.md#alpha-beta-and-stable-versions | ||
| [deprecation-policy]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/deprecation-policy/ | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| We will graduate this feature to stable together with the whole LocalQueue API. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Implementation History | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Major milestones in the lifecycle of a KEP should be tracked in this section. | ||
| Major milestones might include: | ||
| - the `Summary` and `Motivation` sections being merged, signaling SIG acceptance | ||
| - the `Proposal` section being merged, signaling agreement on a proposed design | ||
| - the date implementation started | ||
| - the first Kubernetes release where an initial version of the KEP was available | ||
| - the version of Kubernetes where the KEP graduated to general availability | ||
| - when the KEP was retired or superseded | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| 2024-10-02 KEP | ||
|
|
||
| ## Drawbacks | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented? | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Alternatives | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| What other approaches did you consider, and why did you rule them out? These do | ||
| not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough | ||
| information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable. | ||
| --> |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ | ||
| title: Expose Flavors in LocalQueue Status | ||
| kep-number: 3122 | ||
| authors: | ||
| - "@mbobrovskyi" | ||
| status: implementable | ||
| creation-date: 2024-10-02 | ||
| reviewers: | ||
| - "@mimowo" | ||
| - "@alculquicondor" | ||
| - "@tenzen-y" | ||
| approvers: | ||
| - "@mimowo" | ||
| - "@alculquicondor" | ||
| - "@tenzen-y" | ||
|
|
||
| # The target maturity stage in the current dev cycle for this KEP. | ||
| stage: beta | ||
|
|
||
| # The most recent milestone for which work toward delivery of this KEP has been | ||
| # done. This can be the current (upcoming) milestone, if it is being actively | ||
| # worked on. | ||
| latest-milestone: "v0.9" | ||
|
|
||
| # The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage. | ||
| milestone: | ||
| beta: "v0.9" | ||
|
|
||
| disable-supported: false |