WIP: First cut at input validation for Kubelet

* Add some util functions for basic validation
* Spec api fields more tightly
* Break a dep from util -> api, so I can do the reverse
* Add functions to validate structures
* Call those functions when running manifests

This does not validate as it unmarshals YAML or JSON because I want to be able
to validate structures that come from other inputs without forcing them to be
YAML.

This does not handle all api structures - I am not familiar wnough with the
rest to spec them this tightly - I hope someone else can do that.

There are a number of open questions, marked "FIXME".  Please offer feedback
or opinions.
That SGTM.
On Jun 28, 2014 1:13 PM, "Tim Hockin" <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In pkg/kubelet/kubelet.go:
>
> > @@ -726,12 +726,18 @@ func (kl *Kubelet) RunSyncLoop(updateChannel <-chan manifestUpdate, handler Sync
> >  		case <-time.After(kl.SyncFrequency):
> >  		}
> >
> > -		manifests := []api.ContainerManifest{}
> > -		for _, m := range last {
> > -			manifests = append(manifests, m...)
> > +		allManifests := []api.ContainerManifest{}
> > +		for src, manifests := range last {
> > +			for _, m := range manifests {
> > +				if err := api.ValidateManifest(&m); err != nil {
>
> This is a really good point. Since we don't have a synchronous API, maybe
> we should accept pods and immediately put them into an "invalid" state.
> What do you think?
> … <#146e41c340d5e510_>
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Smith <notifications@github.com>
> wrote: In pkg/kubelet/kubelet.go: > @@ -726,12 +726,18 @@ func (kl
> *Kubelet) RunSyncLoop(updateChannel <-chan manifestUpdate, handler Sync >
> case <-time.After(kl.SyncFrequency): > } > > - manifests :=
> []api.ContainerManifest{} > - for _, m := range last { > - manifests =
> append(manifests, m...) > + allManifests := []api.ContainerManifest{} > +
> for src, manifests := range last { > + for _, m := range manifests { > + if
> err := api.ValidateManifest(&m); err != nil { We should check both places.
> My concern with it as written is that kubelet silently drops the pod, at
> least from apiserver's perspective. We need a mechanism for kubelet to
> formally reject a pod, because right now the apiserver is just going to
> think it's reallllllly slow at starting the pod. -- Reply to this email
> directly or view it on GitHub <
> https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/pull/280/files#r14325483>
> .
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/pull/280/files#r14325943>
> .
>