jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Change:
// purposes for the legacy object counting names in quota.  Unless its supporting // backward compatibility, alias should not be used. func NewObjectCountEvaluator( <del> allowCreateOnUpdate bool, </del> groupResource schema.GroupResource, listFuncByNamespace ListFuncByNamespace, alias api.ResourceName) quota.Evaluator {

Discussion:
Is this a BUG REPORT or FEATURE REQUEST?: /kind bug /sig api-machinery What happened: The that we use to make a create validation function is given admission.Update as its operation field. In the create validation we then use the provided operation (admission.Update) , when we call the admission controllers, even though a new object is being created. A similar thing is happening with the mutating admission. This means that when an objects is created on update, the admission controllers will see this as an update request. Meaning there could be an objects in storage which never passed create admission validation and were never modified by create admission mutation. I think this is a bug. What you expected to happen: Admission controllers would handle a create-on-update exactly the same as a normal create
I think the solution to this would be to separate the static admission attributes into one for the create validation and one for the update validation. Also, the function which performs the mutating admission needs to determine whether or not it is an actual update or if the old object doesn't exist (probably by checking uid) and then call the mutating admission correctly based on which operation is being performed.
/assign I might be interested to give it a try.
How to reproduce this bug?
Instead of a reproduceable BUG, I think it's like a mismatch of conceptual design and actual implementation. If a resource allows create-on-update in its strategy e.g.: Then admission plugins would receive operations (CREATE/UPDATE) on UPDATE requests. Some problems might happen the admission plugin is written without considering the circumstances that admitting a UPDATE operation might result a object creation into the storage. Risky and confusing, WDYT?
With the current build in admission controllers, I'm not sure if there are any bugs. Maybe something with resource quota? The real problem is that there is no way to know which webhook authors will have a dependency on seeing a "create" operation for every object put into storage. If a webhook relies on creates to implement its custom logic (which should be allowed), then objects created with an update would currently be missed by the webhook.
Change:
store CheckpointStore } <del> func NewPersistentCheckpointHandler() CheckpointHandler { return &PersistentCheckpointHandler{store: &FileStore{path: filepath.Join(dockershimRootDir, sandboxCheckpointDir)}} </del> <ins> func NewPersistentCheckpointHandler() (CheckpointHandler, error) { fstore, err := NewFileStore(filepath.Join(dockershimRootDir, sandboxCheckpointDir)) if err != nil { return nil, err } return &PersistentCheckpointHandler{store: fstore}, nil </ins> } func (handler *PersistentCheckpointHandler) CreateCheckpoint(podSandboxID string, checkpoint *PodSandboxCheckpoint) error {

Discussion:
<!-- Thanks for filing an issue! Before hitting the button, please answer these questions.--Is this a request for help? (If yes, you should use our troubleshooting guide and community support channels, see ): What keywords did you search in Kubernetes issues before filing this one? (If you have found any duplicates, you should instead reply there.): Is this a BUG REPORT or FEATURE REQUEST? (choose one): <!-- If this is a BUG REPORT, please: Fill in as much of the template below as you can. If you leave out information, we can't help you as well. If this is a FEATURE REQUEST, please: Describe in detail the feature/behavior/change you'd like to see. In both cases, be ready for followup questions, and please respond in a timely manner. If we can't reproduce a bug or think a feature already exists, we might close your issue. If we're wrong, PLEASE feel free to reopen it and explain why. --Kubernetes version (use ): Environment: Cloud provider or hardware configuration: OS (e.g. from /etc/os-release): Kernel (e.g. ): Install tools: Others: What happened: Using to start a cluster with only one node and found that there are some error logs in kubelet as following: What you expected to happen: How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible): Anything else we need to know:
cc
/cc
Seems caused by my env due to I cannot access gcr due to the proxy failed, will continue to check...
We should create the checkpoint directory when creating the checkpoint store, or else the list failed error will be quite spammy before a container is created.
Will push a fix soon.
Change:
package mount <del> type Mounter struct{} </del> <ins> type Mounter struct { mounterPath string } </ins> func (mounter *Mounter) Mount(source string, target string, fstype string, options []string) error { return nil

Discussion:
Failed: https://k8s- Run so broken it didn't make JUnit output!
Failed: https://k8s- Run so broken it didn't make JUnit output!
Failed: https://k8s- Run so broken it didn't make JUnit output!
Failed: https://k8s- Run so broken it didn't make JUnit output!
Failed: https://k8s- Run so broken it didn't make JUnit output!
Failed: https://k8s- Run so broken it didn't make JUnit output!
Failed: https://k8s- Run so broken it didn't make JUnit output!
Failed: https://k8s- Run so broken it didn't make JUnit output!
, it seems we forgot to add to ; I'll create a PR for that.
Failed: https://k8s- Run so broken it didn't make JUnit output!
Failed: https://k8s- Run so broken it didn't make JUnit output!
Failed: https://k8s- Run so broken it didn't make JUnit output!
Change:
"k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/client/record" kubecontainer "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/kubelet/container" containertest "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/kubelet/container/testing" <del> "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/kubelet/events" </del> "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/kubelet/images" "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/kubelet/network" "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/kubelet/network/mock_network"

Discussion:
go test -v This is because there are a few test cases in dockertools are linux-specific.
Change:
// Represents a projected volume source message ProjectedVolumeSource { // list of volume projections <ins> // +optional </ins> repeated VolumeProjection sources = 1; // Mode bits used to set permissions on created files by default.

Discussion:
What happened: I created a Pod with a ProjectedVolume with an empty array of , but Kubernetes transformed that value to . Some clients are happy with either value (e.g. Go) while others are not (e.g. Python). For example, the following is accepted and stored by Kubernetes, but cannot be read by the Python client: The field has been transformed to : Even a JSON patch has no effect: What you expected to happen: I expected the required (OpenAPI) field of core/v1.ProjectedVolumeSource to be returned as the empty array I submitted. How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible): Create the above Pod: See that has been transformed to : See that the officially-supported Python client is unable to deserialize the Pod: Anything else we need to know?: I recognize there's a lot of layers involved in the steps above. The ineffectiveness of the JSON patch is what makes me think the culprit is somewhere in the field spec or API somehow. /sig api-machinery Environment: Kubernetes version (use ): [official-clients]:
/remove-sig api-machinery /sig storage the issue is in the API definition, which does not indicate the sources field is optional (even though it is)
/cc
Change:
IP address. release: v1.9 file: test/e2e/common/node/pods.go <ins> - testname: Pods, patching status codename: '[sig-node] Pods should patch a pod status [Conformance]' description: A pod is created which MUST succeed and be found running. The pod status when patched MUST succeed. Given the patching of the pod status, the fields MUST equal the new values. release: v1.25 file: test/e2e/common/node/pods.go </ins> - testname: Pods, completes the lifecycle of a Pod and the PodStatus codename: '[sig-node] Pods should run through the lifecycle of Pods and PodStatus [Conformance]'

Discussion:
[X] test approval issue : [X] test pr : 28/07/2022 [X] two weeks soak end date : 12/07/2022 [X] test promotion pr : The endpoint as seen on the website is tested but not part of conformance. The APIsnoop query below shows that there is no conformance test for this endpoint. patchCoreV1NamespacedPodStatus Using a number of existing e2e test practices a new has been created for this pod status endpoint. The e2e logs for this test are listed below. This query shows the pod status 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 testing /sig architecture /area conformance /sig node
/triage accepted
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules: After 90d of inactivity, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, the issue is closed You can: Mark this issue or PR as fresh with Mark this issue or PR as rotten with Close this issue or PR with Offer to help out with [Issue Triage][1] Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /lifecycle stale [1]:
/remove-lifecycle stale targeting this for 1.25
/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
Change:
controlPlaneConfig.GenericConfig.Authorization.Authorizer = authorizerfactory.NewAlwaysDenyAuthorizer() _, s, closeFn := framework.RunAnAPIServer(controlPlaneConfig) defer closeFn() ns := framework.CreateTestingNamespace("auth-always-deny", s, t) defer framework.DeleteTestingNamespace(ns, s, t) <del> transport := http.DefaultTransport </del> <ins> transport := resttransport.NewBearerAuthRoundTripper(framework.UnprivilegedUserToken, http.DefaultTransport) </ins> for _, r := range getTestRequests(ns.Name) { bodyBytes := bytes.NewReader([]byte(r.body))

Discussion:
/kind failing-test <!-- If this is a flake, please add: /kind flake --/kind flake <!-- Please assign a SIG using: /sig SIG-NAME --/sig api-machinery
/assign I want to take a try
2 but actual 0 till timeout resource services, expected 2, actual 0 error waiting or ResourceQuota status: timed out waiting for the condition time later, actual state became 2 Seems polls a ResourceQuota status with timeout 10s may be not enough, we should enlarge it into 300s, that is poll for 300s timeout instead of 10s.
/triage accepted
Change:
} // remove old KMS provider <del> // verifyIfKMSTransformersSwapped sometimes passes even before the changes in the encryption config file are observed. // this causes the metrics tests to fail, which validate two config changes. // this may happen when an existing KMS provider is already running (e.g., new-kms-provider-for-secrets in this case). // to ensure that the changes are observed, we added one more provider (kms-provider-to-encrypt-all) and are validating it in verifyIfKMSTransformersSwapped. </del> encryptionConfigWithoutOldProvider := ` kind: EncryptionConfiguration apiVersion: apiserver.config.k8s.io/v1

Discussion:
transformation expandless | 14m1s Failed; === RUN TestEncryptionConfigHotReload TestEncryptionConfigHotReload When I see this flake, 10-09 is the first one.(But the job history in the testgrid only started from 10-03) some PR that may be related: /sig auth /cc
/cc
/triage accepted
/cc failed two times in recent 3 runs:
/reopen as of this is still .
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
Change:
} <ins> func Test_WhenNilPersister_NoOpPersisterIsAssigned(t *testing.T) { if err := RegisterAuthProviderPlugin("anyPlugin", pluginPersistProvider); err != nil { t.Errorf("unexpected error: failed to register 'anyPlugin': %v", err) } cfg := &clientcmdapi.AuthProviderConfig{ Name:   "anyPlugin", Config: nil, } plugin, err := GetAuthProvider("127.0.0.1", cfg, nil) if err != nil { t.Errorf("unexpected error: failed to get 'anyPlugin': %v", err) } anyPlugin := plugin.(*pluginPersist) if _, ok := anyPlugin.persister.(*noopPersister); !ok { t.Errorf("expected to be No Operation persister") } } </ins> // emptyTransport provides an empty http.Response with an initialized header // to allow wrapping RoundTrippers to set header values. type emptyTransport struct{}

Discussion:
<!-- 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 --What happened: What you expected to happen: no panicking How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible): use azure or OIDC auth plugin with a or without a Anything else we need to know?: a similar OIDC panic issue is registered here
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 auth

Using with a without a () will result in a panic. What happened: What you expected to happen: Expected a successful kube-api server call, or at the very least an error to be returned. Although i think it should just not call and continue with the kube-api server call. Anything else we need to know?: The reason for this is due to where has no check.
/sig cli
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle stale
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle rotten
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue with . Mark the issue as fresh with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /close
Closing this issue. <detailsIn response to : Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue with . Mark the issue as fresh with . /close 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
Change:
// ExtraArgs are extra arguments provided to the etcd binary // when run inside a static pod. <ins> // A key in this map is the flag name as it appears on the // command line except without leading dash(es). </ins> // +optional ExtraArgs map[string]string `json:"extraArgs,omitempty"`

Discussion:
<!-- 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 --I was reading the doc about NodeRegistration, with an interest in specifying some . I noticed that the doc (e.g., ) does not tell me exactly how to identify each arg: exactly as on the command line (including leading dash(es)), as on the command line but without leading dash(es), or camelCase. I expected the doc to enable me to write some with confidence. Kubernetes version (use ): Cloud provider or hardware configuration: OS (e.g: ): Kernel (e.g. ): Install tools: Network plugin and version (if this is a network-related bug): Others:
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 cluster-lifecycle
FWIW the answer is flag names as on the command name but without any leading dashes. This also applies to controllerManager.extraArgs, scheduler.extraArgs, etc. which hopefully should all cover this similarly (if not now, after fixing ...)

<!-- 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 --I was reading about how to use kubeadm and noticed a typo in the API documentation. speaks of the "node subnet" where I think "pod subnet" is intended. Kubernetes version (use ): Cloud provider or hardware configuration: OS (e.g: ): Kernel (e.g. ): Install tools: Network plugin and version (if this is a network-related bug): Others:
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 cluster-lifecycle
/area kubeadm
Change:
} wait.Wait() } else if diff > 0 { <del> glog.V(2).Infof("Too many "%s" replicas, deleting %dn", controller.Name, diff) </del> <ins> glog.V(2).Infof("Too many %q replicas, deleting %d", controller.Name, diff) // Sort the pods in the order such that not-ready < ready, unscheduled // < scheduled, and pending < running. This ensures that we delete pods // in the earlier stages whenever possible. sort.Sort(activePods(filteredList)) </ins> wait := sync.WaitGroup{} wait.Add(diff) for i := 0; i < diff; i++ {

Discussion:
I've noticed a issue where if you have multiple replicated slave pods that don't have a HOST assigned and you reduce the number of replicas in the replicationController definition for those pods, sometimes the currently assigned (and running) pods get killed and the unassigned pod will get assigned to run in the killed pods place. The issue can be reproduced using the guestbook example provided in the repo. Steps to reproduce: (Note this is not always deterministic and may need multiple attempts) the master pod the master service the replicated slaves the Slave Controller definition to only have 1 replicas the Slave Controller with new definition The expected behavior should be that the scheduler is able to determine that unassigned pods are more viable candidates when reducing number of replicas. It seems to be more likely that since this issue is not deterministic, the ordering in which the command returns result is not always deterministically in the same order
: please can you look at this or suggested someone else? Thank you.
Unassign myself from this bug since I cannot get working on this soon. Also remove kubelet from the label since it is not kubelet issue. This is obviously a replicaController issue. cc/ Instead of destroying pod in pending state, replicaController unbound running pod from a node. Kubelet running on such node has this new desire state and kill unwanted pod to match it.
Yes, the replication controller should be smarter, taking into account Phase, Readiness, recency, ... This will be a significant problem for auto-scalers, but I expect manual scaling to be infrequent. I doubt we'll get to this soon. A PR would be welcome. Place to change is here:
Hi, I am final year Master's student of International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad. I am familiar with docker and containers. I have basic understanding of Go language with some hands on Docker API. This project seems interesting and a solution to this will also be a good addition to Kubernetes. So I would like to pick this as my GSoC project. I have started reading about Replication Controller and Pods and going though the code. I would appreciate if someone has any inputs for me on this. Thanks, Swapnil Patil
Change:
// this feature currently supported only on GCE/GKE/AWS framework.SkipUnlessProviderIs("gce", "gke", "aws") <ins> loadBalancerLagTimeout := framework.LoadBalancerLagTimeoutDefault if framework.ProviderIs("aws") { loadBalancerLagTimeout = framework.LoadBalancerLagTimeoutAWS } </ins> loadBalancerCreateTimeout := framework.LoadBalancerCreateTimeoutDefault if nodes := framework.GetReadySchedulableNodesOrDie(cs); len(nodes.Items) > framework.LargeClusterMinNodesNumber { loadBalancerCreateTimeout = framework.LoadBalancerCreateTimeoutLarge

Discussion:
Sub-issue for For AWS ELB, when an ELB is first created, is made it is very normal that it takes 2 minutes to be created, but the DNS name is reported fairly quickly.
Change:
embed = [":go_default_library"], deps = [ "//staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/sets:go_default_library", <ins> "//staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/endpoints/metrics:go_default_library", "//staging/src/k8s.io/component-base/metrics/legacyregistry:go_default_library", "//staging/src/k8s.io/component-base/metrics/testutil:go_default_library", </ins> ], )

Discussion:
What would you like to be : Currently the apiserver has request latencies metrics, which are a histogram of requests to the apiserver. However, these request metrics do not include healthz. While we have recently the ability to get back health check metrics from the healthz endpoint directly, we should also emit this data as a metric, so that we can monitor health check latencies. /assign /sig api-machinery instrumentation
GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: jktomer. 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 : What would you like to be : /sig api-machinery instrumentation 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
I noticed this is informally assigned. Has there been any progress? Is this a place I can fit in?
Yes, I'm working on a PR.
/assign
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale