Update Kustomization integration KEP by pwittrock · Pull Request #698 · kubernetes/enhancements

pwittrock · 2019-01-18T20:25:38Z

Split into 2 parts
- Add subcommand
- New kep for integration into file handling

- add more background and context. - revisit specifics of UX. - provide justification for not using plugins. - add more alternatives considered.

pwittrock · 2019-01-18T20:26:02Z

/assign @soltysh
/assign @liggitt
/assign @monopole
/assign @Liujingfang1

k8s-ci-robot · 2019-01-18T20:26:04Z

@pwittrock: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: Liujingfang1.

Note that only kubernetes members and repo collaborators can be assigned and that issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time.
For more information please see the contributor guide

Details

In response to this:

/assign @soltysh
/assign @liggitt
/assign @monopole
/assign @Liujingfang1

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

bgrant0607 · 2019-01-18T23:58:03Z

keps/sig-cli/0035-kustomize-integration.md

+
+## Summary
+
+This is a follow up to [KEP-0031](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-cli/0031-kustomize.md)


This PR is removing that file.

justaugustus

Please remove any references to NEXT_KEP_NUMBER and rename the KEP to just be the draft date and KEP title.
KEP numbers will be obsolete once #703 merges.

pwittrock · 2019-01-22T20:16:26Z

@justaugustus That is great news. Updated.

soltysh

I left you a few nits here and there, but overall this lgtm.
Thank you 🥇

soltysh · 2019-01-23T11:33:24Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-file-processing-integration.md

+Kubectl commands taking the common flags (`-f`, `--filename`, `-R`, `--recursive`) will support `kustomization.yaml`
+files.
+
+Cli-runtime will add the flags `-k, --kustomize=[]`, which will be registered along side the other file processing


Quick question, I assume -k and -f will be exclusive? If so, maybe it's worth adding that here.

Hm. Good question. We could start that way and open it up in the future.

Yeah, exclusive seems the best to start with, it'll leave us more room for change than the other way around.

soltysh · 2019-01-23T11:36:06Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+
+Link to tracking issue: kubernetes/enhancements#633
+
+See [KEP FAQ](kep-faq.md) for "why not as as plugin".


and Why should this be part of kubectl? section too.

soltysh · 2019-01-23T11:37:01Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+
+Kustomize Standalone Sub Command
+
+Publish the `kustomize build` command as `kubectl kustomize`.  Update documentation demonstrate using kustomize as


to demonstrate

soltysh · 2019-01-23T11:37:22Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+Publish the `kustomize build` command as `kubectl kustomize`.  Update documentation demonstrate using kustomize as
+`kubectl kustomize <dir> | kubectl apply -f -`.
+
+`kubectl kustomize` takes a single argument with is the location of a directory containing a file named `Kustomization`


file named kustomization.yaml

@monopole WDYT of changing the file name pre-integration (we could still recognize the old one, but not advertise it)? This follows the pattern of Makefile and Dockerfile.

FWIW, We went with .yaml (and, alas, .yml) because emacs and vi both still use the legacy extension as a pretty reliable edit model signal. I just tried it without the extension, and my stock emacs and vim installs failed to do the Right Thing based on content detection.

Makefile, being a unique text formatting class with one instantiation, doesn't suffer from this problem (emacs/vi do the Right Thing). Dockerfile detection hasn't made it into my stock emacs install yet :)

I'm for allowing all of them ( Kustomization, kustomization.yaml, kustomization.yml) pre-integration, erroring if none or more than one found (no ambiguity).

Have we actually considered abandoning the brand name Kustomization and actually call it customization.yaml?

Yes we have.

keeping this kustomization.yaml

Honestly, since we're introducing -k flag which is meant to point to kustomization.yaml I think we can safely assume that any name is supported, right? Or did I miss something? Eventually we should make this more clearer in description of the flag, if so. But I remember from the discussion we've had during KubeCon we wanted to explicitly point to the file to run kustomization, unless the fact that we're using -k/--kustomize allows users to pass file OR the directory containing the file. In which case there are two possibilities:

if I pass file name to -k the name doesn't matter, only the kind specified in file must be Kustomization.

if I pass directory we can search for kustomization.yaml or just look for a file with Kustomization kind.
So actually the name doesn't matter. Other thoughts?

I'd expect -k to take a directory, and look for the kustomization file the same way we look for the file when processing a base referenced from another file. For these directories to be composable, they will need to use kustomize filenames findable via base reference, anyway.

That's a reasonable argument for -k accepting a dir.

soltysh · 2019-01-23T11:38:10Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+`kubectl kustomize` takes a single argument with is the location of a directory containing a file named `Kustomization`
+and writes to stdout the kustomized Resource Config.
+
+If the directory does not contain a `Kustomization` file, it returns an error.


kustomize.yaml

soltysh · 2019-01-23T11:39:44Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+
+## Kustomize Example
+
+Following is an example of a kustomization.yaml file used by kustomize:


Put kustomization.yaml into back-quotes.

soltysh · 2019-01-23T11:39:52Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+Following is an example of a kustomization.yaml file used by kustomize:
+
+```
+apiVersion: v1beta1


soltysh · 2019-01-23T11:40:49Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+
+## Graduation Criteria
+
+The API version for kustomize is defined in the kustomization.yaml file.  The KEP is targeted `v1beta1`.


Back-quote kustomization.yaml

soltysh · 2019-01-23T11:41:03Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+The API version for kustomize is defined in the kustomization.yaml file.  The KEP is targeted `v1beta1`.
+
+The criteria for graduating from `v1beta1` for the kustomize sub-command should be determined as part of
+evaluating the success and maturity of kustomize as a command within kubectl.


soltysh · 2019-01-23T11:43:23Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+Most implementation will be in cli-runtime
+
+- [ ] vendor `kustomize/pkg` into kubernetes
+- [ ] copy `kustomize/k8sdeps` into cli-runtime


Yeah, at the end of the day I'm hoping that cli-runtime will contain the core of kustomize, but everything above (commands, etc) should exist outside cli-runtime. Maybe worth putting that here.

monopole · 2019-01-23T19:27:18Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+## Summary
+
+[Kustomize](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kustomize)
+was developed as a subproject of sig-cli by kubectl maintainers with the goal of addressing


s/with the goal of addressing/to address/

monopole · 2019-01-23T19:27:20Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+
+[Kustomize](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kustomize)
+was developed as a subproject of sig-cli by kubectl maintainers with the goal of addressing
+a collection of issues (See [motivation](#motivation)) creating friction for declarative workflows in kubectl


issues can link to #motivation - can drop the (See ...)

monopole · 2019-01-23T21:24:07Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+It is independent of, but complementary to, the [*server-side apply*](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/555)
+initiative that was started later and targeted at a separate collection of `kubectl apply` issues.
+
+**Note:**


This paragraph (the "Note") and the next offer more details on the purpose / history of kustomize,

Trying to rephrase without the "Note":

Kustomize offers generators and transformations in a declarative form that improve
on functionality provided by existing imperative commands in kubectl.

The declarative approach offers a clear path to accountability (all input can be kept
in version control), can safely exploit a holistic, unbounded view of disparate resources
and their interdependence (it's a plan about what to do, not a direct action), and
can be easily constrained to verifiable rules across this view (all edits must be
structured, no removal semantics, no environment side-effects, etc.).

Imperative kubectl commands / flags available through kustomize:
....

monopole · 2019-01-23T21:24:48Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+- updating Resources from Resource Config without wiping out control-plane defined fields (e.g. Service clusterIp)
+- automatically deciding whether to create, update or delete Resources
+
+**Motivation:**


heading repeated

monopole · 2019-01-23T21:54:41Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-file-processing-integration.md

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+---
+title: Integrate Kustomize into cli-runtime


minor point: This KEP has three titles - this one (in the table), the file name, and the text after the first #. Let's pick one.

more importantly - We've discussed -f vs -k / visitation at length, and my views/concerns are missing here or perhaps just not expressed as I'd express them.

We want declarative features delivered as part of kubectl, and have established that the quickest way to do so is via adding a new subcommand (the other KEP), and deferring debate about -f and its baggage.

monopole · 2019-01-23T21:57:51Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+If the directory does not contain a `Kustomization` file, it returns an error.
+
+Defer deeper integration into ResourceBuilder (e.g. `kubectl apply -k <dir>`) as a follow up after discussing
+the precise UX and technical tradeoffs.  (i.e. deeper integration is more delicate and can be done independently.)


This is enough about -f / -k for this PR

dsansot-ru · 2019-01-23T22:20:08Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+literals:  
+- JAVA_HOME=/opt/java/jdk
+- JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS=-agentlib:hprof
+


The indentation is off for literals.

dsansot-ru · 2019-01-23T22:20:31Z

keps/sig-cli/kustomize-subcommand-integration.md

+- name: app-sec
+commands:
+  username: "echo admin"
+  password: "echo secret"


The indentation is off for commands.

monopole · 2019-01-24T00:33:04Z

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot · 2019-01-24T00:33:12Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: monopole, pwittrock

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~keps/sig-cli/OWNERS~~ [pwittrock]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

pwittrock added 4 commits January 17, 2019 13:21

Update Kustomization integration KEP

525cefc

- add more background and context. - revisit specifics of UX. - provide justification for not using plugins. - add more alternatives considered.

Address PR comments

0670cfc

address pr comments

7f998a3

Fix kep numbering

47e2b2a

k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/kep Categorizes KEP tracking issues and PRs modifying the KEP directory labels Jan 18, 2019

k8s-ci-robot requested review from bgrant0607 and seans3 January 18, 2019 20:25

k8s-ci-robot added sig/architecture Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Architecture. sig/cli Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG CLI. sig/pm size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jan 18, 2019

k8s-ci-robot assigned liggitt, monopole and soltysh Jan 18, 2019

pwittrock mentioned this pull request Jan 18, 2019

Update Kustomization integration KEP #684

Closed

bgrant0607 reviewed Jan 18, 2019

View reviewed changes

justaugustus requested changes Jan 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 22, 2019

pwittrock force-pushed the master branch 3 times, most recently from 23d3fe4 to f2d6e2a Compare January 22, 2019 20:11

Address PR comments

e5d6599

pwittrock force-pushed the master branch from f2d6e2a to e5d6599 Compare January 22, 2019 20:15

soltysh approved these changes Jan 23, 2019

View reviewed changes

monopole reviewed Jan 23, 2019

View reviewed changes

dsansot-ru reviewed Jan 23, 2019

View reviewed changes

address pr comments

0480514

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 24, 2019

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 595feb5 into kubernetes:master Jan 24, 2019

justaugustus removed the sig/pm label Apr 19, 2020


		## Summary

		This is a follow up to [KEP-0031](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-cli/0031-kustomize.md)


		Link to tracking issue: kubernetes/enhancements#633

		See [KEP FAQ](kep-faq.md) for "why not as as plugin".


		Kustomize Standalone Sub Command

		Publish the `kustomize build` command as `kubectl kustomize`. Update documentation demonstrate using kustomize as


		## Kustomize Example

		Following is an example of a kustomization.yaml file used by kustomize:


		## Graduation Criteria

		The API version for kustomize is defined in the kustomization.yaml file. The KEP is targeted `v1beta1`.

		@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
		---
		title: Integrate Kustomize into cli-runtime

Conversation

pwittrock commented Jan 18, 2019

Uh oh!

pwittrock commented Jan 18, 2019

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 18, 2019

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

justaugustus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pwittrock commented Jan 22, 2019

Uh oh!

soltysh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

monopole Jan 23, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

monopole Jan 23, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

monopole Jan 23, 2019 •

edited

Loading

monopole Jan 23, 2019 •

edited

Loading

monopole Jan 23, 2019 •

edited

Loading