jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
This issue is a bucket placeholder for collaborating on the "Known Issues" additions for the 1.22 Release Notes(). If you know of issues or API changes that are going out in 1.22, please comment here so that we can coordinate incorporating information about these changes in the Release Notes. /assign /sig release /milestone v1.22
GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: simcard0000. Note that only , repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. For more information please see <detailsIn response to : This issue is a bucket placeholder for collaborating on the "Known Issues" additions for the 1.22 Release Notes(). If you know of issues or API changes that are going out in 1.19, please comment here so that we can coordinate incorporating information about these changes in the Release Notes. /sig release /milestone v1.22 Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/triage accepted
1.19 or 1.22 ?
/assign
For the 1.21 example in , should be changed to
Please add the following to the Known Issues section of the 1.22 Release Notes: CC
Can you also mention the CSIMigrationVSphere feature gate in the note as well?
what should I mention about the CSIMigrationVSphere feature gate? If someone uses vSphere CSI Driver, he/she should not upgrade to v1.22 whether CSIMigrationVSphere is on or off. If someone does not use vSphere CSI Driver, then we also don't need to worry about this feature gate.
If the feature gate is enabled, they should also hold off on upgrading to 1.22
The main concern as far as k8s release is - it is intree to CSI migration of vSphere volumes that is broken in 1.22. So I think our release note should say something like:

Related discussion:
text: <ins> # Maintainers Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> </ins>
Code change:
Expose totalAnnotationSizeLimitB in the validation package: This value is useful for validating annotations outside of the validation package, such as in SSA: Otherwise, size validation on annotations outside of the package would diverge and cause issues later. /kind cleanup /wg api-expression cc
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign

Related discussion:
text: // FieldImmutableErrorMsg is a error message for field is immutable. const FieldImmutableErrorMsg string = `field is immutable` <del> const totalAnnotationSizeLimitB int = 256 * (1 << 10) // 256 kB </del> <ins> const TotalAnnotationSizeLimitB int = 256 * (1 << 10) // 256 kB </ins> // BannedOwners is a black list of object that are not allowed to be owners. var BannedOwners = map[schema.GroupVersionKind]struct{}{
Code change:
Expose totalAnnotationSizeLimitB in the validation package: This value is useful for validating annotations outside of the validation package, such as in SSA: Otherwise, size validation on annotations outside of the package would diverge and cause issues later. /kind cleanup /wg api-expression cc
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign

Related discussion:
text: // ValidateAnnotations validates that a set of annotations are correctly defined. func ValidateAnnotations(annotations map[string]string, fldPath *field.Path) field.ErrorList { allErrs := field.ErrorList{} <del> var totalSize int64 for k, v := range annotations { </del> <ins> for k := range annotations { </ins> for _, msg := range validation.IsQualifiedName(strings.ToLower(k)) { allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Invalid(fldPath, k, msg)) } <del> totalSize += (int64)(len(k)) + (int64)(len(v)) </del> } <del> if totalSize > (int64)(totalAnnotationSizeLimitB) { allErrs = append(allErrs, field.TooLong(fldPath, "", totalAnnotationSizeLimitB)) </del> <ins> if err := ValidateAnnotationsSize(annotations); err != nil { allErrs = append(allErrs, field.TooLong(fldPath, "", TotalAnnotationSizeLimitB)) </ins> } return allErrs } <ins> func ValidateAnnotationsSize(annotations map[string]string) error { var totalSize int64 for k, v := range annotations { totalSize += (int64)(len(k)) + (int64)(len(v)) } if totalSize > (int64)(TotalAnnotationSizeLimitB) { return fmt.Errorf("annotations size %d is larger than limit %d", totalSize, TotalAnnotationSizeLimitB) } return nil } </ins> func validateOwnerReference(ownerReference metav1.OwnerReference, fldPath *field.Path) field.ErrorList { allErrs := field.ErrorList{} gvk := schema.FromAPIVersionAndKind(ownerReference.APIVersion, ownerReference.Kind)
Code change:
Expose totalAnnotationSizeLimitB in the validation package: This value is useful for validating annotations outside of the validation package, such as in SSA: Otherwise, size validation on annotations outside of the package would diverge and cause issues later. /kind cleanup /wg api-expression cc
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign

Related discussion:
text: {"1234/5678": "bar"}, {"1.2.3.4/5678": "bar"}, {"UpperCase123": "bar"}, <del> {"a": strings.Repeat("b", totalAnnotationSizeLimitB-1)}, </del> <ins> {"a": strings.Repeat("b", TotalAnnotationSizeLimitB-1)}, </ins> { <del> "a": strings.Repeat("b", totalAnnotationSizeLimitB/2-1), "c": strings.Repeat("d", totalAnnotationSizeLimitB/2-1), </del> <ins> "a": strings.Repeat("b", TotalAnnotationSizeLimitB/2-1), "c": strings.Repeat("d", TotalAnnotationSizeLimitB/2-1), </ins> }, } for i := range successCases {
Code change:
Expose totalAnnotationSizeLimitB in the validation package: This value is useful for validating annotations outside of the validation package, such as in SSA: Otherwise, size validation on annotations outside of the package would diverge and cause issues later. /kind cleanup /wg api-expression cc
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign

Related discussion:
text: } } totalSizeErrorCases := []map[string]string{ <del> {"a": strings.Repeat("b", totalAnnotationSizeLimitB)}, </del> <ins> {"a": strings.Repeat("b", TotalAnnotationSizeLimitB)}, </ins> { <del> "a": strings.Repeat("b", totalAnnotationSizeLimitB/2), "c": strings.Repeat("d", totalAnnotationSizeLimitB/2), </del> <ins> "a": strings.Repeat("b", TotalAnnotationSizeLimitB/2), "c": strings.Repeat("d", TotalAnnotationSizeLimitB/2), </ins> }, } for i := range totalSizeErrorCases {
Code change:
Expose totalAnnotationSizeLimitB in the validation package: This value is useful for validating annotations outside of the validation package, such as in SSA: Otherwise, size validation on annotations outside of the package would diverge and cause issues later. /kind cleanup /wg api-expression cc
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign

Related discussion:
text: corev1 "k8s.io/api/core/v1" "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/api/meta" <ins> apimachineryvalidation "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/api/validation" </ins> "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1/unstructured" "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/runtime" ) <del> const totalAnnotationSizeLimitB int64 = 256 * (1 << 10) // 256 kB </del> type lastAppliedUpdater struct { fieldManager Manager }
Code change:
Expose totalAnnotationSizeLimitB in the validation package: This value is useful for validating annotations outside of the validation package, such as in SSA: Otherwise, size validation on annotations outside of the package would diverge and cause issues later. /kind cleanup /wg api-expression cc
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign

Related discussion:
text: annotations = map[string]string{} } annotations[corev1.LastAppliedConfigAnnotation] = value <del> if isAnnotationsValid(annotations) != nil { </del> <ins> if err := apimachineryvalidation.ValidateAnnotationsSize(annotations); err != nil { </ins> delete(annotations, corev1.LastAppliedConfigAnnotation) } accessor.SetAnnotations(annotations)
Code change:
Expose totalAnnotationSizeLimitB in the validation package: This value is useful for validating annotations outside of the validation package, such as in SSA: Otherwise, size validation on annotations outside of the package would diverge and cause issues later. /kind cleanup /wg api-expression cc
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign

Related discussion:
text: } return string(lastApplied), nil } <del> func isAnnotationsValid(annotations map[string]string) error { var totalSize int64 for k, v := range annotations { totalSize += (int64)(len(k)) + (int64)(len(v)) } if totalSize > (int64)(totalAnnotationSizeLimitB) { return fmt.Errorf("annotations size %d is larger than limit %d", totalSize, totalAnnotationSizeLimitB) } return nil } </del>
Code change:
[X] Test PR: kuberenetes/kubernetes [x] Two weeks soak end date: 1 July 2021 [x] Test promotion PR: kubernetes/kubernetes According to this APIsnoop query, there are still some remaining StatefulSet endpoints which are untested. Create a watch to track deployment events. Create a deployment with a static label. Confirm that the pods are running. Get the deployment status. Parse the response and confirm that the deployment status conditions can be listed. Update the deployment status. Confirm via the watch that the status has been updated. Patch the deployment status. Confirm via the watch that the status has been patched. Using an existing as a template for a new for deployment lifecycle test. This query shows the endpoints hit within a short period of running the e2e test If a test with these calls gets merged, test coverage will go up by 1 point This test is also created with the goal of conformance promotion. /sig apps /sig testing /sig architecture /area conformance
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details

Related discussion:
text: "encoding/json" "fmt" "math/rand" <ins> "strings" </ins> "time" "github.com/davecgh/go-spew/spew"
Code change:
[X] Test PR: kuberenetes/kubernetes [x] Two weeks soak end date: 1 July 2021 [x] Test promotion PR: kubernetes/kubernetes According to this APIsnoop query, there are still some remaining StatefulSet endpoints which are untested. Create a watch to track deployment events. Create a deployment with a static label. Confirm that the pods are running. Get the deployment status. Parse the response and confirm that the deployment status conditions can be listed. Update the deployment status. Confirm via the watch that the status has been updated. Patch the deployment status. Confirm via the watch that the status has been patched. Using an existing as a template for a new for deployment lifecycle test. This query shows the endpoints hit within a short period of running the e2e test If a test with these calls gets merged, test coverage will go up by 1 point This test is also created with the goal of conformance promotion. /sig apps /sig testing /sig architecture /area conformance
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details

Related discussion:
text: "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/runtime/schema" "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/types" "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/intstr" <ins> utilrand "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/rand" </ins> "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait" "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/watch" "k8s.io/client-go/dynamic" clientset "k8s.io/client-go/kubernetes" appsclient "k8s.io/client-go/kubernetes/typed/apps/v1" watchtools "k8s.io/client-go/tools/watch" <ins> "k8s.io/client-go/util/retry" </ins> appsinternal "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/apis/apps" deploymentutil "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/controller/deployment/util" "k8s.io/kubernetes/test/e2e/framework"
Code change:
[X] Test PR: kuberenetes/kubernetes [x] Two weeks soak end date: 1 July 2021 [x] Test promotion PR: kubernetes/kubernetes According to this APIsnoop query, there are still some remaining StatefulSet endpoints which are untested. Create a watch to track deployment events. Create a deployment with a static label. Confirm that the pods are running. Get the deployment status. Parse the response and confirm that the deployment status conditions can be listed. Update the deployment status. Confirm via the watch that the status has been updated. Patch the deployment status. Confirm via the watch that the status has been patched. Using an existing as a template for a new for deployment lifecycle test. This query shows the endpoints hit within a short period of running the e2e test If a test with these calls gets merged, test coverage will go up by 1 point This test is also created with the goal of conformance promotion. /sig apps /sig testing /sig architecture /area conformance
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details

Related discussion:
text: MUST succeed. It MUST succeed when deleting the Deployment. release: v1.20 file: test/e2e/apps/deployment.go <ins> - testname: Deployment, status sub-resource codename: '[sig-apps] Deployment should validate Deployment Status endpoints [Conformance]' description: When a Deployment is created it MUST succeed. Attempt to read, update and patch its status sub-resource; all mutating sub-resource operations MUST be visible to subsequent reads. release: v1.22 file: test/e2e/apps/deployment.go </ins> - testname: 'PodDisruptionBudget: list and delete collection' codename: '[sig-apps] DisruptionController Listing PodDisruptionBudgets for all namespaces should list and delete a collection of PodDisruptionBudgets [Conformance]'
Code change:
[X] Test PR: kuberenetes/kubernetes [x] Two weeks soak end date: 1 July 2021 [x] Test promotion PR: kubernetes/kubernetes According to this APIsnoop query, there are still some remaining StatefulSet endpoints which are untested. Create a watch to track deployment events. Create a deployment with a static label. Confirm that the pods are running. Get the deployment status. Parse the response and confirm that the deployment status conditions can be listed. Update the deployment status. Confirm via the watch that the status has been updated. Patch the deployment status. Confirm via the watch that the status has been patched. Using an existing as a template for a new for deployment lifecycle test. This query shows the endpoints hit within a short period of running the e2e test If a test with these calls gets merged, test coverage will go up by 1 point This test is also created with the goal of conformance promotion. /sig apps /sig testing /sig architecture /area conformance
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details

Related discussion:
text: framework.ExpectNoError(err, "failed to see %v event", watch.Deleted) }) <del> ginkgo.It("should validate Deployment Status endpoints", func() { </del> <ins> /* Release: v1.22 Testname: Deployment, status sub-resource Description: When a Deployment is created it MUST succeed. Attempt to read, update and patch its status sub-resource; all mutating sub-resource operations MUST be visible to subsequent reads. */ framework.ConformanceIt("should validate Deployment Status endpoints", func() { </ins> dClient := c.AppsV1().Deployments(ns) dName := "test-deployment-" + utilrand.String(5) labelSelector := "e2e=testing"
Code change:
<!-- Please use this template while reporting a bug and provide as much info as possible. Not doing so may result in your bug not being addressed in a timely manner. Thanks! If the matter is security related, please disclose it privately via --kubelet panics on creation of inline ephemeral volume with FSType specified. creation of inline ephemeral volume succeeds with FSType specified. no existing isolated test case. Happens during e2e testing of pmem-csi. Kubernetes version (use ): The pmem-csi CI system where this was detected, runs same tests on k8s systems with 1.19 and 1.20. The problem occurs in testing on 1.20 system, problem does not occur on 1.19 system.Cloud provider or hardware configuration: pmem-csi tests run on cluster formed by few qemu-based systems running Fedora-33 and emulated pmem storage. The issue has been seen in e2e testing in , where a new test was recently introduced that creates a pod with an inline ephemeral volume. If the related VolumeSource has filesystem type set to empty "", or FSType is omitted in spec, then the pod creation works OK. In that case, pmem-csi chooses it's default fstype which is . Example of working definition of VolumeSource: If the filesystem type in the VolumeSource is set to or then kubelet fails to create the volume and pod. A panic trace is written in the node kubelet log and the creation will be retried few times, On pmem-csi side: the 1st NodePublishVolume is received, namespace and volume are created, formatted with mkfs, mounted and NodePublishVolume returns OK. Same request is received few times with increasing time interval. e2e testing code which tries to create the pod, will fail with:
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign
/sig node storage
... and ownership changed for those volumes.

Related discussion:
text: return false } <del> accessModes := c.spec.PersistentVolume.Spec.AccessModes </del> <ins> if c.spec.PersistentVolume == nil { klog.V(4).Info(log("mounter.SetupAt Warning: skipping fsGroup permission change, no access mode available. The volume may only be accessible to root users.")) return false } </ins> if c.spec.PersistentVolume.Spec.AccessModes == nil { klog.V(4).Info(log("mounter.SetupAt WARNING: skipping fsGroup, access modes not provided")) return false } <del> if !hasReadWriteOnce(accessModes) { </del> <ins> if !hasReadWriteOnce(c.spec.PersistentVolume.Spec.AccessModes) { </ins> klog.V(4).Info(log("mounter.SetupAt WARNING: skipping fsGroup, only support ReadWriteOnce access mode")) return false }