Implemented `gwctl describe policycrds` #2872

Devaansh-Kumar · 2024-03-14T12:37:18Z

What type of PR is this?
Add one of the following kinds:
/area gwctl
/kind feature
/cc @gauravkghildiyal

What this PR does / why we need it:
Implement gwctl describe policycrds command

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #2870

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Implemented command `gwctl describe policycrds`

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-03-14T12:37:28Z

Hi @Devaansh-Kumar. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-03-21T21:30:58Z

/assign

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-03-21T22:36:08Z

gwctl/pkg/policymanager/manager.go

@@ -196,6 +201,36 @@ func (p PolicyCRD) IsClusterScoped() bool {
 	return p.crd.Spec.Scope == apiextensionsv1.ClusterScoped
 }

+func (p PolicyCRD) Spec() map[string]interface{} {


These helper functions seem to be purely concerned with printing at the moment. Lets keep them in the printer package.

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-03-21T22:36:32Z

gwctl/pkg/printer/policies.go

@@ -148,3 +150,65 @@ func (pp *PoliciesPrinter) PrintDescribeView(policies []policymanager.Policy) {
 		}
 	}
 }
+
+type policyCrdDescribeView struct {
+	// PolicyCrd   *apiextensionsv1.CustomResourceDefinition `json:",omitempty"`


Does this comment need to be cleaned up?

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-03-21T22:39:42Z

gwctl/pkg/printer/policies_test.go

@@ -354,3 +354,155 @@ timeoutpolicies.bar.com      Direct       Namespaced  5m
 		t.Errorf("Unexpected diff\ngot=\n%v\nwant=\n%v\ndiff (-want +got)=\n%v", got, want, diff)
 	}
 }
+
+func TestPolicyCrd_PrintDescribeView(t *testing.T) {
+	// fakeClock := testingclock.NewFakeClock(time.Now())


Can we clean this up if we don't need a fakeClock? Else, can we evaluate if we need a fakeClock and use it?

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-03-21T22:39:51Z

gwctl/pkg/printer/policies_test.go

+	params := utils.MustParamsForTest(t, common.MustClientsForTest(t, objects...))
+	pp := &PoliciesPrinter{
+		Out:   &bytes.Buffer{},
+		// Clock: fakeClock,


Same comment as above.

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-03-21T22:41:57Z

gwctl/pkg/printer/policies_test.go

+Kind: CustomResourceDefinition
+Metadata:
+  creationTimestamp: null
+  labels:


For things like label, annotations etc which we're including outside the metadata, maybe we should not print them twice?

Agreed, I will remove the label and annotations outside as its more difficult to remove from within metadata

Lets try using concrete types and see if that helps ease this as well.

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-03-21T22:48:06Z

gwctl/cmd/describe.go

+			policyCrdList = params.PolicyManager.GetCRDs()
+		} else {
+			var found bool
+			policyCrd, found := params.PolicyManager.GetCRD(args[1])


For users, args[1] would usually mean the actual "name" of the CRD. It's worth noting here that the "name" of the CRD is not the policyCrdID which is being used as the "key" for the policyCRDs map within manager.go.

This means that if someone does gwctl describe policycrds mycrd.foo.bar, it might not work.

I think we need to modify the GetCRD function to accept a crdName and then manually search for the CRD in the map and return the right one.

Yes I agree with this. I will make the changes

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-03-21T22:51:39Z

gwctl/pkg/printer/policies.go

+	APIVersion  string                 `json:",omitempty"`
+	Kind        string                 `json:",omitempty"`
+	Metadata    map[string]interface{} `json:",omitempty"`
+	Spec        map[string]interface{} `json:",omitempty"`


Will using the concrete type here instead of map[string]interface{} make things simple? Any reason why we purposely want to keep this generic?

Same comment for Metadata and Status

Yes, initially I used concrete types itself, but the output was not being parsed properly by yaml package, so I had to convert it to map[string]interface{}.
Should I leave it as it is or do you suggest any other alternative?

Can you elaborate on what problem you run into if you use something like this:

Metadata *metav1.ObjectMeta `json:",omitempty"` Spec *apiextensionsv1.CustomResourceDefinitionSpec `json:",omitempty"` Status *apiextensionsv1.CustomResourceDefinitionStatus `json:",omitempty"`

I think this should make things very easy. Am I missing something?

My mistake, I was not dereferencing the type, due to which it wasnt parsing properly. I works fine now

Devaansh-Kumar · 2024-03-22T10:39:33Z

@gauravkghildiyal I have resolved the above issues, just reconfirm this comment once: #2872 (comment)

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-03-28T04:04:03Z

gwctl/pkg/printer/policies.go

+	APIVersion  string                 `json:",omitempty"`
+	Kind        string                 `json:",omitempty"`
+	Metadata    map[string]interface{} `json:",omitempty"`
+	Spec        map[string]interface{} `json:",omitempty"`


Can you elaborate on what problem you run into if you use something like this:

Metadata *metav1.ObjectMeta `json:",omitempty"` Spec *apiextensionsv1.CustomResourceDefinitionSpec `json:",omitempty"` Status *apiextensionsv1.CustomResourceDefinitionStatus `json:",omitempty"`

I think this should make things very easy. Am I missing something?

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-03-28T04:06:14Z

gwctl/pkg/printer/policies_test.go

+Kind: CustomResourceDefinition
+Metadata:
+  creationTimestamp: null
+  labels:


Lets try using concrete types and see if that helps ease this as well.

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-03-28T04:09:33Z

gwctl/pkg/printer/policies.go

+	Status      map[string]interface{} `json:",omitempty"`
+}
+
+func (pp *PoliciesPrinter) PolicyCrd_PrintDescribeView(policyCrds []policymanager.PolicyCRD) {


This isn't a blocker, but it would be nice if we could adjust the overall evolving names of other functions as well:

PrintPoliciesGetView PrintPoliciesDescribeView PrintPolicyCRDsGetView PrintPolicyCRDsDescribeView

If we do include this change, lets correspondingly change the Test function names as well :)

Devaansh-Kumar · 2024-03-28T07:35:36Z

@gauravkghildiyal I have resolved the above issues, please review

gauravkghildiyal

Thanks @Devaansh-Kumar, almost there!

Can we try to address https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/pull/2872/files#r1534775341 please?

gwctl/cmd/describe.go

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-04-02T04:06:29Z

@Devaansh-Kumar I see you pushed some new changes...is https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/pull/2872/files#r1534775341 still a work in progress?

/ok-to-test

Devaansh-Kumar · 2024-04-02T05:43:01Z

@Devaansh-Kumar I see you pushed some new changes...is https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/pull/2872/files#r1534775341 still a work in progress?

/ok-to-test

@gauravkghildiyal I have already left a comment on that thread before, I think I have already solved it but maybe you are asking for something else that I dont understand.

You had told to not print out Labels and Annotations twice as they appear in Metadata as well. So I changed the code to only print Metadata. Am I missing something?

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-04-02T05:48:08Z

Am I missing something?

Can we try to get those outside Metadata please, as per the original plan. I'm hoping it won't be too challenging now (correct me if I'm wrong)

Devaansh-Kumar · 2024-04-02T06:20:24Z

Am I missing something?

Can we try to get those outside Metadata please, as per the original plan. I'm hoping it won't be too challenging now (correct me if I'm wrong)

Ok, now I understood what you wanted. You want me to parse the entire *metav1.ObjectMeta struct and not include label and annotations, right?

Devaansh-Kumar · 2024-04-02T07:07:33Z

@gauravkghildiyal I have tried out your suggested change here by creating a new function ExcludeFieldsFromStruct to remove fields from a struct. I put this in a seperate file so that we can use this in the future as well.

jongwooo · 2024-04-02T09:46:14Z

gwctl/pkg/printer/policies_test.go

+Labels:
+  gateway.networking.k8s.io/policy: inherited
+Metadata:
+  creationTimestamp: null


Consider using fakeClock to validate the output for creationTimestamp.
Ref. #2822

fakeClock := testingclock.NewFakeClock(time.Now())

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-04-03T04:48:09Z

@Devaansh-Kumar

How about something like this:

type policyCrdDescribeView struct {
	Name        string                                          `json:",omitempty"`
	Namespace   string                                          `json:",omitempty"`
	APIVersion  string                                          `json:",omitempty"`
	Kind        string                                          `json:",omitempty"`
	Labels      map[string]string                               `json:",omitempty"`
	Annotations map[string]string                               `json:",omitempty"`
	Metadata    *metav1.ObjectMeta                              `json:",omitempty"`
	Spec        *apiextensionsv1.CustomResourceDefinitionSpec   `json:",omitempty"`
	Status      *apiextensionsv1.CustomResourceDefinitionStatus `json:",omitempty"`
}
.
.
.
		metadata := crd.ObjectMeta.DeepCopy()
		// Remove fields which are printed independently from the metadata.
		metadata.Name = ""
		metadata.Namespace = ""
		metadata.Labels = nil
		metadata.Annotations = nil

		views := []policyCrdDescribeView{
			{
				Name:      crd.Name,
				Namespace: crd.Namespace,
			},
			{
				APIVersion: crd.APIVersion,
				Kind:       crd.Kind,
			},
			{
				Labels:      crd.Labels,
				Annotations: crd.Annotations,
			},
			{
				Metadata: metadata,
			},
			{
				Spec: &crd.Spec,
			},
			{
				Status: &crd.Status,
			},
		}

I guess you won't need the ExcludeFieldsFromStruct then? The intent was/is:

To avoid duplication
And show important fields at the top level (like kubectl), instead of within metadata.

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-04-03T04:51:22Z

/label tide/merge-method-squash

…r policies and policycrds

Devaansh-Kumar · 2024-04-03T06:18:24Z

@gauravkghildiyal I have made the necessary changes, please review

gauravkghildiyal · 2024-04-04T02:47:55Z

Thanks for getting this through @Devaansh-Kumar

/lgtm
/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-04-04T02:48:08Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Devaansh-Kumar, gauravkghildiyal

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~gwctl/OWNERS~~ [gauravkghildiyal]

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

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from gauravkghildiyal March 14, 2024 12:37

Devaansh-Kumar marked this pull request as ready for review March 14, 2024 12:37

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Mar 14, 2024

k8s-ci-robot assigned gauravkghildiyal Mar 21, 2024

gauravkghildiyal reviewed Mar 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

Devaansh-Kumar force-pushed the gwctl/describe-policycrd branch from 87a5362 to a52b454 Compare March 22, 2024 10:33

gauravkghildiyal reviewed Mar 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

Devaansh-Kumar force-pushed the gwctl/describe-policycrd branch from a52b454 to 1f2fb32 Compare March 28, 2024 07:34

gauravkghildiyal reviewed Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

gwctl/cmd/describe.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Devaansh-Kumar force-pushed the gwctl/describe-policycrd branch from 1f2fb32 to 070bdb1 Compare March 29, 2024 17:30

k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Apr 2, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar force-pushed the gwctl/describe-policycrd branch from 070bdb1 to 87cd786 Compare April 2, 2024 07:05

jongwooo reviewed Apr 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. label Apr 3, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar added 5 commits April 3, 2024 11:47

Implemented gwctl describe policycrds

9c219d8

Modified GetCRD to fetch PolicyCRD based on CRD name

3006dd2

Used concrete types for policycrds and renamed functions and tests fo…

1d78035

…r policies and policycrds

Added functionality to remove fields from a struct

5ef9dad

Added creationTimestamp in policies_test

d2071d4

Devaansh-Kumar force-pushed the gwctl/describe-policycrd branch from 87cd786 to d2071d4 Compare April 3, 2024 06:18

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 4, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 4, 2024

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 947463f into kubernetes-sigs:main Apr 4, 2024
8 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Implemented `gwctl describe policycrds` #2872

Implemented `gwctl describe policycrds` #2872

Devaansh-Kumar commented Mar 14, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Mar 14, 2024

gauravkghildiyal commented Mar 21, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 21, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 21, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 21, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 21, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 21, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar Mar 22, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 28, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 21, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar Mar 22, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 21, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar Mar 22, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 28, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar Mar 28, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar commented Mar 22, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 28, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 28, 2024

gauravkghildiyal Mar 28, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar commented Mar 28, 2024

gauravkghildiyal left a comment

gauravkghildiyal commented Apr 2, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar commented Apr 2, 2024

gauravkghildiyal commented Apr 2, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar commented Apr 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Devaansh-Kumar commented Apr 2, 2024

jongwooo Apr 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

gauravkghildiyal Apr 3, 2024

gauravkghildiyal commented Apr 3, 2024

gauravkghildiyal commented Apr 3, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar commented Apr 3, 2024

gauravkghildiyal commented Apr 4, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 4, 2024

Implemented gwctl describe policycrds #2872

Implemented gwctl describe policycrds #2872

Conversation

Devaansh-Kumar commented Mar 14, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Mar 14, 2024

gauravkghildiyal commented Mar 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Devaansh-Kumar commented Mar 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Devaansh-Kumar commented Mar 28, 2024

gauravkghildiyal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gauravkghildiyal commented Apr 2, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar commented Apr 2, 2024

gauravkghildiyal commented Apr 2, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar commented Apr 2, 2024 • edited Loading

Devaansh-Kumar commented Apr 2, 2024

jongwooo Apr 2, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gauravkghildiyal commented Apr 3, 2024

gauravkghildiyal commented Apr 3, 2024

Devaansh-Kumar commented Apr 3, 2024

gauravkghildiyal commented Apr 4, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 4, 2024

Implemented `gwctl describe policycrds` #2872

Implemented `gwctl describe policycrds` #2872

Devaansh-Kumar commented Apr 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jongwooo Apr 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading