Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 40932, 41896, 41815, 41309, 41628)
Modify CronJob API to add job history limits, cleanup jobs in controller
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
As discussed in #34710: this adds two limits to `CronJobSpec`, to limit the number of finished jobs created by a CronJob to keep.
**Which issue this PR fixes**: fixes#34710
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
cc @soltysh, please have a look and let me know what you think -- I'll then add end to end testing and update the doc in a separate commit. What is the timeline to get this into 1.6?
The plan:
- [x] API changes
- [x] Changing versioned APIs
- [x] `types.go`
- [x] `defaults.go` (nothing to do)
- [x] `conversion.go` (nothing to do?)
- [x] `conversion_test.go` (nothing to do?)
- [x] Changing the internal structure
- [x] `types.go`
- [x] `validation.go`
- [x] `validation_test.go`
- [x] Edit version conversions
- [x] Edit (nothing to do?)
- [x] Run `hack/update-codegen.sh`
- [x] Generate protobuf objects
- [x] Run `hack/update-generated-protobuf.sh`
- [x] Generate json (un)marshaling code
- [x] Run `hack/update-codecgen.sh`
- [x] Update fuzzer
- [x] Actual logic
- [x] Unit tests
- [x] End to end tests
- [x] Documentation changes and API specs update in separate commit
**Release note**:
```release-note
Add configurable limits to CronJob resource to specify how many successful and failed jobs are preserved.
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 41709, 41685, 41754, 41759, 37237)
Projected volume plugin
This is a WIP volume driver implementation as noted in the commit for https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35313.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
kubeadm: Hide the unnecessary --fuzz-iters flag
super straightforward. We don't want this flag to leak into our UX.
cc @jbeda @dmmcquay @deads2k
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Convert HPA controller to support HPA v2 mechanics
This PR converts the HPA controller to support the mechanics from HPA v2.
The HPA controller continues to make use of the HPA v1 client, but utilizes
the conversion logic to work with autoscaling/v2alpha1 objects internally.
It is the follow-up PR to #36033 and part of kubernetes/features#117.
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
There was a bug in the HPA v1 conversion logic that would occur when
a custom metric and a metric that was encoded in v1 as
targetCPUUtilizationPercentage were used at the same time. In this
case, the custom metric could overwrite the CPU metric, or vice versa.
This fixes that bug, and ensures that the fuzzer tests round-tripping
with multiple metrics.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
move pkg/fields to apimachinery
Purely mechanical move of `pkg/fields` to apimachinery.
Discussed with @lavalamp on slack. Moving this an `labels` to apimachinery.
@liggitt any concerns? I think the idea of field selection should become generic and this ends up shared between client and server, so this is a more logical location.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39803, 39698, 39537, 39478)
[scheduling] Moved pod affinity and anti-affinity from annotations to api fields #25319
Converted pod affinity and anti-affinity from annotations to api fields
Related: #25319
Related: #34508
**Release note**:
```Pod affinity and anti-affinity has moved from annotations to api fields in the pod spec. Pod affinity or anti-affinity that is defined in the annotations will be ignored.```
Recent changes to support multiple methods for discovery meant that
"kubeadm init" no longer was sufficient and users would need to add
"--discovery token://" to achieve the same results.
Instead lets assume discovery if the user does not specify anything else
to maintain parity and the brevity of our original instructions.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/api
cc @lavalamp @smarterclayton @erictune @thockin @bgrant0607
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
well: 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.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
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
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
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)
Jordan Liggitt