jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
Since scheduler Policy API was total removed, we don't support any more. Remove unsupported configuration.
/sig scheduling /assign
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
/sig scheduling /cc
/sig scheduling (trying to tell the bots to remove )
The label(s) cannot be applied. These labels are supported: <detailsIn response to : /remove-needs sig /remove-label needs-sig 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
It's true scheduler doesn't quite use this field anymore, but I'm wondering if some other project like ClusterAutoscaler or simulator still consumes this via .
There's no place we can config this field now by configure file(before we can apply the change by policy api, but now it's removed). So it seems like unless we support this feature with CC, or this field is useless. To other projects, it's the same. When they are using legacy policy api, they can configure this field, but once they synced with the latest kubernetes, with the policy api removed, they can not configure this anymore. In this situation, we should add support in CC. I don't quite understand the relationship between k/k with k/autoscaling or others, I think they sync with k/k periodic.
As I mentioned above, it's still accessible via a framework runtime programmatically, and thus may be still useful. For example, upon a scheduling failure, a ClusterAutoscaler's implementation may choose to dryrun through all filter plugins to ensure a new provisioned node can fit the pod, instead of resolving the failure while failing at another latter filter plugin.
Oh, I haven't thought of configuration via programmatically, that saved my concern. But a little strange.
That's exactly what I meant. Given it's a public option in framework, and there is no alternative if we disabled it, it'd be good to check with potential consumers. For now I can think of CA ( and k-sigs/scheduler-simulator ( If they can confirm it's not needed in their usecases, I'm fine with removing .
To k/autoscaler, at least these codes are still there together with the legacy policy api. , looking forward to the response.
is not used in sigs/kube-scheduler-simulator. ‍
this isn't used by cluster autoscaler, we can remove it.

Related discussion:
text: framework.PodNominator parallelizer parallelize.Parallelizer <del> // Indicates that RunFilterPlugins should accumulate all failed statuses and not return // after the first failure. runAllFilters bool </del> } // extensionPoint encapsulates desired and applied set of plugins at a specific extension
Code change:
Since scheduler Policy API was total removed, we don't support any more. Remove unsupported configuration.
/sig scheduling /assign
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
/sig scheduling /cc
/sig scheduling (trying to tell the bots to remove )
The label(s) cannot be applied. These labels are supported: <detailsIn response to : /remove-needs sig /remove-label needs-sig 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
It's true scheduler doesn't quite use this field anymore, but I'm wondering if some other project like ClusterAutoscaler or simulator still consumes this via .
There's no place we can config this field now by configure file(before we can apply the change by policy api, but now it's removed). So it seems like unless we support this feature with CC, or this field is useless. To other projects, it's the same. When they are using legacy policy api, they can configure this field, but once they synced with the latest kubernetes, with the policy api removed, they can not configure this anymore. In this situation, we should add support in CC. I don't quite understand the relationship between k/k with k/autoscaling or others, I think they sync with k/k periodic.
As I mentioned above, it's still accessible via a framework runtime programmatically, and thus may be still useful. For example, upon a scheduling failure, a ClusterAutoscaler's implementation may choose to dryrun through all filter plugins to ensure a new provisioned node can fit the pod, instead of resolving the failure while failing at another latter filter plugin.
Oh, I haven't thought of configuration via programmatically, that saved my concern. But a little strange.
That's exactly what I meant. Given it's a public option in framework, and there is no alternative if we disabled it, it'd be good to check with potential consumers. For now I can think of CA ( and k-sigs/scheduler-simulator ( If they can confirm it's not needed in their usecases, I'm fine with removing .
To k/autoscaler, at least these codes are still there together with the legacy policy api. , looking forward to the response.
is not used in sigs/kube-scheduler-simulator. ‍
this isn't used by cluster autoscaler, we can remove it.

Related discussion:
text: metricsRecorder        *metricsRecorder podNominator           framework.PodNominator extenders              []framework.Extender <del> runAllFilters          bool </del> captureProfile         CaptureProfile clusterEventMap        map[framework.ClusterEvent]sets.String parallelizer           parallelize.Parallelizer
Code change:
Since scheduler Policy API was total removed, we don't support any more. Remove unsupported configuration.
/sig scheduling /assign
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
/sig scheduling /cc
/sig scheduling (trying to tell the bots to remove )
The label(s) cannot be applied. These labels are supported: <detailsIn response to : /remove-needs sig /remove-label needs-sig 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
It's true scheduler doesn't quite use this field anymore, but I'm wondering if some other project like ClusterAutoscaler or simulator still consumes this via .
There's no place we can config this field now by configure file(before we can apply the change by policy api, but now it's removed). So it seems like unless we support this feature with CC, or this field is useless. To other projects, it's the same. When they are using legacy policy api, they can configure this field, but once they synced with the latest kubernetes, with the policy api removed, they can not configure this anymore. In this situation, we should add support in CC. I don't quite understand the relationship between k/k with k/autoscaling or others, I think they sync with k/k periodic.
As I mentioned above, it's still accessible via a framework runtime programmatically, and thus may be still useful. For example, upon a scheduling failure, a ClusterAutoscaler's implementation may choose to dryrun through all filter plugins to ensure a new provisioned node can fit the pod, instead of resolving the failure while failing at another latter filter plugin.
Oh, I haven't thought of configuration via programmatically, that saved my concern. But a little strange.
That's exactly what I meant. Given it's a public option in framework, and there is no alternative if we disabled it, it'd be good to check with potential consumers. For now I can think of CA ( and k-sigs/scheduler-simulator ( If they can confirm it's not needed in their usecases, I'm fine with removing .
To k/autoscaler, at least these codes are still there together with the legacy policy api. , looking forward to the response.
is not used in sigs/kube-scheduler-simulator. ‍
this isn't used by cluster autoscaler, we can remove it.

Related discussion:
text: } } <del> // WithRunAllFilters sets the runAllFilters flag, which means RunFilterPlugins accumulates // all failure Statuses. func WithRunAllFilters(runAllFilters bool) Option { return func(o *frameworkOptions) { o.runAllFilters = runAllFilters } } </del> // WithPodNominator sets podNominator for the scheduling frameworkImpl. func WithPodNominator(nominator framework.PodNominator) Option { return func(o *frameworkOptions) {
Code change:
Since scheduler Policy API was total removed, we don't support any more. Remove unsupported configuration.
/sig scheduling /assign
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
/sig scheduling /cc
/sig scheduling (trying to tell the bots to remove )
The label(s) cannot be applied. These labels are supported: <detailsIn response to : /remove-needs sig /remove-label needs-sig 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
It's true scheduler doesn't quite use this field anymore, but I'm wondering if some other project like ClusterAutoscaler or simulator still consumes this via .
There's no place we can config this field now by configure file(before we can apply the change by policy api, but now it's removed). So it seems like unless we support this feature with CC, or this field is useless. To other projects, it's the same. When they are using legacy policy api, they can configure this field, but once they synced with the latest kubernetes, with the policy api removed, they can not configure this anymore. In this situation, we should add support in CC. I don't quite understand the relationship between k/k with k/autoscaling or others, I think they sync with k/k periodic.
As I mentioned above, it's still accessible via a framework runtime programmatically, and thus may be still useful. For example, upon a scheduling failure, a ClusterAutoscaler's implementation may choose to dryrun through all filter plugins to ensure a new provisioned node can fit the pod, instead of resolving the failure while failing at another latter filter plugin.
Oh, I haven't thought of configuration via programmatically, that saved my concern. But a little strange.
That's exactly what I meant. Given it's a public option in framework, and there is no alternative if we disabled it, it'd be good to check with potential consumers. For now I can think of CA ( and k-sigs/scheduler-simulator ( If they can confirm it's not needed in their usecases, I'm fine with removing .
To k/autoscaler, at least these codes are still there together with the legacy policy api. , looking forward to the response.
is not used in sigs/kube-scheduler-simulator. ‍
this isn't used by cluster autoscaler, we can remove it.

Related discussion:
text: eventRecorder:        options.eventRecorder, informerFactory:      options.informerFactory, metricsRecorder:      options.metricsRecorder, <del> runAllFilters:        options.runAllFilters, </del> extenders:            options.extenders, PodNominator:         options.podNominator, parallelizer:         options.parallelizer,
Code change:
Since scheduler Policy API was total removed, we don't support any more. Remove unsupported configuration.
/sig scheduling /assign
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
/sig scheduling /cc
/sig scheduling (trying to tell the bots to remove )
The label(s) cannot be applied. These labels are supported: <detailsIn response to : /remove-needs sig /remove-label needs-sig 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
It's true scheduler doesn't quite use this field anymore, but I'm wondering if some other project like ClusterAutoscaler or simulator still consumes this via .
There's no place we can config this field now by configure file(before we can apply the change by policy api, but now it's removed). So it seems like unless we support this feature with CC, or this field is useless. To other projects, it's the same. When they are using legacy policy api, they can configure this field, but once they synced with the latest kubernetes, with the policy api removed, they can not configure this anymore. In this situation, we should add support in CC. I don't quite understand the relationship between k/k with k/autoscaling or others, I think they sync with k/k periodic.
As I mentioned above, it's still accessible via a framework runtime programmatically, and thus may be still useful. For example, upon a scheduling failure, a ClusterAutoscaler's implementation may choose to dryrun through all filter plugins to ensure a new provisioned node can fit the pod, instead of resolving the failure while failing at another latter filter plugin.
Oh, I haven't thought of configuration via programmatically, that saved my concern. But a little strange.
That's exactly what I meant. Given it's a public option in framework, and there is no alternative if we disabled it, it'd be good to check with potential consumers. For now I can think of CA ( and k-sigs/scheduler-simulator ( If they can confirm it's not needed in their usecases, I'm fine with removing .
To k/autoscaler, at least these codes are still there together with the legacy policy api. , looking forward to the response.
is not used in sigs/kube-scheduler-simulator. ‍
this isn't used by cluster autoscaler, we can remove it.

Related discussion:
text: } pluginStatus.SetFailedPlugin(pl.Name()) statuses[pl.Name()] = pluginStatus <del> if !f.runAllFilters { // Exit early if we don't need to run all filters. return statuses } </del> } }
Code change:
Since scheduler Policy API was total removed, we don't support any more. Remove unsupported configuration.
/sig scheduling /assign
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
/sig scheduling /cc
/sig scheduling (trying to tell the bots to remove )
The label(s) cannot be applied. These labels are supported: <detailsIn response to : /remove-needs sig /remove-label needs-sig 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
It's true scheduler doesn't quite use this field anymore, but I'm wondering if some other project like ClusterAutoscaler or simulator still consumes this via .
There's no place we can config this field now by configure file(before we can apply the change by policy api, but now it's removed). So it seems like unless we support this feature with CC, or this field is useless. To other projects, it's the same. When they are using legacy policy api, they can configure this field, but once they synced with the latest kubernetes, with the policy api removed, they can not configure this anymore. In this situation, we should add support in CC. I don't quite understand the relationship between k/k with k/autoscaling or others, I think they sync with k/k periodic.
As I mentioned above, it's still accessible via a framework runtime programmatically, and thus may be still useful. For example, upon a scheduling failure, a ClusterAutoscaler's implementation may choose to dryrun through all filter plugins to ensure a new provisioned node can fit the pod, instead of resolving the failure while failing at another latter filter plugin.
Oh, I haven't thought of configuration via programmatically, that saved my concern. But a little strange.
That's exactly what I meant. Given it's a public option in framework, and there is no alternative if we disabled it, it'd be good to check with potential consumers. For now I can think of CA ( and k-sigs/scheduler-simulator ( If they can confirm it's not needed in their usecases, I'm fine with removing .
To k/autoscaler, at least these codes are still there together with the legacy policy api. , looking forward to the response.
is not used in sigs/kube-scheduler-simulator. ‍
this isn't used by cluster autoscaler, we can remove it.

Related discussion:
text: plugins       []*TestPlugin wantStatus    *framework.Status wantStatusMap framework.PluginToStatus <del> runAllFilters bool </del> }{ { name: "SuccessFilter",
Code change:
Since scheduler Policy API was total removed, we don't support any more. Remove unsupported configuration.
/sig scheduling /assign
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
/sig scheduling /cc
/sig scheduling (trying to tell the bots to remove )
The label(s) cannot be applied. These labels are supported: <detailsIn response to : /remove-needs sig /remove-label needs-sig 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
It's true scheduler doesn't quite use this field anymore, but I'm wondering if some other project like ClusterAutoscaler or simulator still consumes this via .
There's no place we can config this field now by configure file(before we can apply the change by policy api, but now it's removed). So it seems like unless we support this feature with CC, or this field is useless. To other projects, it's the same. When they are using legacy policy api, they can configure this field, but once they synced with the latest kubernetes, with the policy api removed, they can not configure this anymore. In this situation, we should add support in CC. I don't quite understand the relationship between k/k with k/autoscaling or others, I think they sync with k/k periodic.
As I mentioned above, it's still accessible via a framework runtime programmatically, and thus may be still useful. For example, upon a scheduling failure, a ClusterAutoscaler's implementation may choose to dryrun through all filter plugins to ensure a new provisioned node can fit the pod, instead of resolving the failure while failing at another latter filter plugin.
Oh, I haven't thought of configuration via programmatically, that saved my concern. But a little strange.
That's exactly what I meant. Given it's a public option in framework, and there is no alternative if we disabled it, it'd be good to check with potential consumers. For now I can think of CA ( and k-sigs/scheduler-simulator ( If they can confirm it's not needed in their usecases, I'm fine with removing .
To k/autoscaler, at least these codes are still there together with the legacy policy api. , looking forward to the response.
is not used in sigs/kube-scheduler-simulator. ‍
this isn't used by cluster autoscaler, we can remove it.

Related discussion:
text: config.Plugin{Name: pl.name}) } profile := config.KubeSchedulerProfile{Plugins: cfgPls} <del> f, err := newFrameworkWithQueueSortAndBind(registry, profile, WithRunAllFilters(tt.runAllFilters)) </del> <ins> f, err := newFrameworkWithQueueSortAndBind(registry, profile) </ins> if err != nil { t.Fatalf("fail to create framework: %s", err) }
Code change:
In the K8s Conformance meeting of 6 April the testing of Node endpoints and their eligibility for conformance testing was discussed. This issue is created to get more community input on the topic. Should node endpoints be tested? Can we accualy test these endpoints with the current test framework /sig testing /sig architecture /area conformance
/triage accepted /cc
I have lost track of this issue where it have already been discussed. Let's continue to discuss further here. Apologies for the confusion /cc
Clayton We have historically focused conformance on the perceived end user experience deploying applications to a conformant Kubernetes cluster as being consistently successful. From that perspective, while these are actions that are indeed key to conformant behavior on the majority of distributions, the first two are not invoked by end users, only by kubelets and potentially administrators in rare cases. I would expect to be able to create a node object, delete it, mutate its status, and delete a portion of them on a conformant Kubernetes cluster as an admin - but I would not expect a similar end user to do so. If we can make a case that a conformant Kubernetes distribution would reasonably not allow any of these actions via the API, then we could make a case to omit them from conformance. I can see a small path to adding these to conformance under a "they may be necessary as administrative action on the vast majority of kubernetes clusters", but I can't necessarily bump that to 100% of Kube clusters, especially if we put the application deployer as the center of our story (an application deployer does not need to delete node collections in order to succeed at running an application on conformant kubernetes)
Addressed the question in SIG Node
Created to make the remaining node endpoints ineligible. readCoreV1NodeStatus replaceCoreV1NodeStatus deleteCoreV1CollectionNode

Related discussion:
text: - endpoint: replaceNetworkingV1NamespacedNetworkPolicyStatus reason: endpoints is currently feature gated and and will only receive e2e & conformance test in 1.25 link: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/107963 <ins> - endpoint: readCoreV1NodeStatus reason: Kubernetes distribution would reasonably not allow this action via the API link: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/109379 - endpoint: replaceCoreV1NodeStatus reason: Kubernetes distribution would reasonably not allow this action via the API link: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/109379 - endpoint: deleteCoreV1CollectionNode reason: Kubernetes distribution would reasonably not allow this action via the API link: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/109379 </ins>