Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 49665, 49689, 49495, 49146, 48934)
make it possible to allow discovery errors for controllers
Update the discovery client to return partial discovery information *and* an error. Since we can aggregate API servers, discovery of some resources can fail independently. Callers of this function who want to tolerate the errors can, existing callers will still get an error and fail in normal blocks.
@kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-misc @sttts
This adds an interface form of dynamic.Client and
dynamic.ResourceClient, making those two follow the general client
conventions: `Interface` is an interface, and `Client` is the concrete
implementation. `ClientPool` retains it's interface status.
This allows us to create a fake implemenation of dyanmic.Interface,
dynamic.ResourceInterface, and dynamic.ClientPool for testing.
Users who delete a collection expect all resources to be deleted, and
users can also delete an uninitialized resource. To preserve this
expectation, DeleteCollection selects all resources regardless of
initialization.
The namespace controller should list uninitialized resources in order to
gate cleanup of a namespace.
If the namespace controller encounters an error trying to delete a
single GroupVersionResource, add the error to an aggregated list of
errors and continue attempting to delete all the GroupVersionResources
instead of stopping at the first error. Return the aggregated error list
(if any) when done. This allows us to delete as much of the content in
the namespace as we can in each pass.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39807, 37505, 39844, 39525, 39109)
Made cache.Controller to be interface.
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
#37504
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/controller
cc @jsafrane @mikedanese @bprashanth @derekwaynecarr @thockin @saad-ali
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone **lgtms** and then someone
experienced in the project **approves**), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
## If You Care About the Process:
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
perfectly: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
## TLDR:
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the OWNERS file to add
the names of people that should be reviewing code in the future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify the **approvers** section.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an approver or reviewer
of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver of the subdirectories too, so not all
OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
devinyan