New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[go1.15] Update to go1.15.7 #98363
[go1.15] Update to go1.15.7 #98363
Conversation
/triage accepted |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
For RelEng: /assign @dims |
This PR may require API review. If so, when the changes are ready, complete the pre-review checklist and request an API review. Status of requested reviews is tracked in the API Review project. |
/assign @liggitt |
@@ -342,13 +342,13 @@ func init() { | |||
} | |||
|
|||
var fileDescriptor_aaac5994f79683e8 = []byte{ | |||
// 1104 bytes of a gzipped FileDescriptorProto | |||
// 1102 bytes of a gzipped FileDescriptorProto |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
whoa... didn't expect these generation changes... any idea what happened here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
to be honest no 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hmm... did we accidentally bump proto generator libraries somehow in one of the build images?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will go over the PRs, but I don't remember bumping this
for reference:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hmm... did we accidentally bump proto generator libraries somehow in one of the build images?
Potentially a result of this PR to enable more arches for kube-cross: kubernetes/release#1853
cc: @dims
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@liggitt @justaugustus yep, that's the one. how bad is it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok, that explains the diff. would like an ack from node API reviewers that the change in the generated protobuf tag to drop json field name doesn't affect their use
@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ func (m *TopologyInfo) GetNodes() []*NUMANode { | |||
|
|||
// NUMA representation of NUMA node | |||
type NUMANode struct { | |||
ID int64 `protobuf:"varint,1,opt,name=ID,json=iD,proto3" json:"ID,omitempty"` | |||
ID int64 `protobuf:"varint,1,opt,name=ID,proto3" json:"ID,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
would like an ack from @kubernetes/sig-node-api-reviews this doesn't impact any pod resource API serialization
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@SergeyKanzhelev @ehashman Can you please ack this change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think @AlexeyPerevalov can help here! I also contributed to the feature, digging into the git history to restore the full context.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to be clear, there is the same change on thetype Device struct
structure in two files above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My take, but please let's wait for @AlexeyPerevalov 's to confirm, is that we don't need anything special for NUMANode
. It should behave like any other podresources
API message. Not sure if some setting got lost somewhere. The intent was to just do what the rest of the proto file did. I'll research which settings podresources
originally used. Also, thinking about it @RenaudWasTaken took care of the v1alpha1 -> v1 promotion, so he may want to comment here? I'm not sure something changed when moving to v1.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if nothing in the kubelet path uses json proto serialization, then this looks like a no-op change to me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It didn't impact.
podresources is not only the one place, where I found json=iD. I also found it in libopenstorage an d deviceplugin. Probably, it's due to generator modifies the first letter (to lower case)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
right. none of those paths use json proto serialization, correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
right. none of those paths use json proto serialization, correct?
AFAIK nothing uses the json proto
@@ -342,13 +342,13 @@ func init() { | |||
} | |||
|
|||
var fileDescriptor_aaac5994f79683e8 = []byte{ | |||
// 1104 bytes of a gzipped FileDescriptorProto | |||
// 1102 bytes of a gzipped FileDescriptorProto |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok, that explains the diff. would like an ack from node API reviewers that the change in the generated protobuf tag to drop json field name doesn't affect their use
Needs rebase |
/approve |
/approve needs rebase/regen |
rebased @liggitt, PTAL |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: cpanato, dims, justaugustus, liggitt, mrunalp, saschagrunert, xmudrii 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
/area dependency
What this PR does / why we need it:
Tracking issue: kubernetes/release#1851
Slack thread: https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/C2C40FMNF/p1610736817029800
cc: @kubernetes/release-engineering
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: