Fix optional resource deletion for collector CR #3494
Conversation
| gvk, err := apiutil.GVKForObject(l, cl.Scheme()) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| list.SetGroupVersionKind(gvk) | ||
| err = cl.List(ctx, list, options...) | ||
| gvk.Kind = fmt.Sprintf("%sList", gvk.Kind) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feels really stupid, but I couldn't find an idiomatic way to get a xxxList instance given an xxx instance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FYI, if I go back to the previous version using Unstructured, then the cache doesn't work even if I explicitly enable unstructured caching in the client. I think I'd need to change the indexer as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
argh that's incredibly frustrating, should we ask the kubernetes folks if there's a better way to do this? This just feels very flimsy to me... like what if an object doesn't support List for some reason?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For what it's worth, controller-runtime itself does these kinds of things as well: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime/blob/f529320b4c0fa5205067dec4eaeabc3c6cf62d25/pkg/client/client.go#L230.
And if the object doesn't support List, well, the test won't pass. We could even add a test with a fake client to verify.
I would like a solution without these kinds of hacks, but I'm losing hope that it's actually possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah it's a huge bummer.
swiatekm
force-pushed
the
fix/remove-optional-resources
branch
from
96d5c1b to
8bc20d1
Compare
swiatekm
force-pushed
the
fix/remove-optional-resources
branch
from
8bc20d1 to
7b43d08
Compare
swiatekm
force-pushed
the
fix/remove-optional-resources
branch
from
7b43d08 to
53fb524
Compare
| gvk, err := apiutil.GVKForObject(l, cl.Scheme()) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| list.SetGroupVersionKind(gvk) | ||
| err = cl.List(ctx, list, options...) | ||
| gvk.Kind = fmt.Sprintf("%sList", gvk.Kind) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
argh that's incredibly frustrating, should we ask the kubernetes folks if there's a better way to do this? This just feels very flimsy to me... like what if an object doesn't support List for some reason?
swiatekm
force-pushed
the
fix/remove-optional-resources
branch
from
1fcfe5e to
8cc6d12
Compare
swiatekm
force-pushed
the
fix/remove-optional-resources
branch
from
8cc6d12 to
e78208a
Compare
Description:
I've refactored and cleaned up our owned resource tracking:
Link to tracking Issue(s):
Testing: