Automatic merge from submit-queue
Remove alpha provisioning
This is the first part of https://github.com/kubernetes/features/issues/36
@kubernetes/sig-storage-misc
**Release note**:
```release-note
Alpha version of dynamic volume provisioning is removed in this release. Annotation
"volume.alpha.kubernetes.io/storage-class" does not have any special meaning. A default storage class
and DefaultStorageClass admission plugin can be used to preserve similar behavior of Kubernetes cluster,
see https://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/persistent-volumes/#class-1 for details.
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Replace hand-written informers with generated ones
Replace existing uses of hand-written informers with generated ones.
Follow-up commits will switch the use of one-off informers to shared
informers.
This is a precursor to #40097. That PR will switch one-off informers to shared informers for the majority of the code base (but not quite all of it...).
NOTE: this does create a second set of shared informers in the kube-controller-manager. This will be resolved back down to a single factory once #40097 is reviewed and merged.
There are a couple of places where I expanded the # of caches we wait for in the calls to `WaitForCacheSync` - please pay attention to those. I also added in a commented-out wait in the attach/detach controller. If @kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews is ok with enabling the waiting, I'll do it (I'll just need to tweak an integration test slightly).
@deads2k @sttts @smarterclayton @liggitt @soltysh @timothysc @lavalamp @wojtek-t @gmarek @sjenning @derekwaynecarr @kubernetes/sig-scalability-pr-reviews
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 40855, 40859)
PV binding: send an event when there are no PVs to bind
This is similar to scheduler that says "no nodes available to schedule pods"
when it can't schedule a pod.
@kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews
This fix prevents the PV controller from forcefully overwriting the provisioned volume's name with the generated PV name. Instead, it allows dynamic provisioner implementers to set the name of the volume to a value that they choose.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 40126, 40565, 38777, 40564, 40572)
Do not swallow error in asw.updateNodeStatusUpdateNeeded
Ref #39056
Bubble the error up to `SetNodeUpdateStatusNeeded` and log it out.
NOTE: This does not modify interface of `SetNodeUpdateStatusNeeded`
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39064, 40294)
Refactor persistent volume tests
This is an attempt to make the binder tests a bit more concise. The PVCs are being created by a "templating" function. There is also a handful of PVs in the tests but those vary quite more and I don't think similar approach would save us much code.
Reference:
https://reviewable.kubernetes.io/reviews/kubernetes/kubernetes/29006#-KPJuVeDE0O6TvDP9jia
@jsafrane: I hope this is what you have on mind.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39628, 39551, 38746, 38352, 39607)
Increasing times on reconciling volumes fixing impact to AWS.
#**What this PR does / why we need it**:
We are currently blocked by API timeouts with PV volumes. See https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/39526. This is a workaround, not a fix.
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
A second PR will be dropped with CLI cobra options in it, but we are starting with increasing the reconciliation periods. I am dropping this without major testing and will test on our AWS account. Will be marked WIP until I run smoke tests.
**Release note**:
```release-note
Provide kubernetes-controller-manager flags to control volume attach/detach reconciler sync. The duration of the syncs can be controlled, and the syncs can be shut off as well.
```
PV controller should not use Controller.Requeue, as as it is not available in
shared informers. We need to implement our own work queues instead where we
can enqueue volumes/claims as we want.
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)
Matthew Wong