🌱 enable requiredfields linter #5643

v47 · 2025-09-03T00:32:43Z

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

Enables Kube API linter’s requiredfields check to ensure required API fields aren’t omitted or pointer types.
Removes omitempty tags from required OIDC identity provider fields and MachinePool block device DeviceName fields to align with new linter rules and guarantee proper serialization.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes :
Fixes #5492

Checklist:

Release note:

Enabled requiredfields Kube API linter check and removed `omitempty` tags from required EKS and experimental MachinePool API fields.

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-09-03T00:32:50Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign dlipovetsky for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-09-03T00:32:52Z

Hi @v47. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

fiunchinho · 2025-09-03T09:17:35Z

/ok-to-test

JoelSpeed · 2025-09-03T10:09:15Z

Please update KAL to the latest version. After discussion with the Kube API reviewers, and updates to the Kube API conventions, the required fields rule has been rewritten and will now recommend omitempty on fields, so this PR is going in the opposite direction to the current best advice

damdo · 2025-09-03T10:22:00Z

/hold

richardcase · 2025-09-03T15:51:20Z

Also the PR needs a retitle.

…ditions checks in .golangci-kal.yml (comment out conditions config). The older version was not picking them.

JoelSpeed

In a lot of cases, changing the serialization can be breaking, though clients do need to update to the new library version for this to take effect.

Where we already have a non-zero min length, adding omitempty/omitzero should be safe, since no one should have persisted an empty value anyway

Where there aren't min lengths already, this could be problematic. Have you checked what the behaviour is when a zero value is persisted and you upgrade into this schema/client?

Existing values should be fine because of ratcheting validation, but, if the client now starts omitting the value, it will remove the value on write and this will lead to a required validation coming up, which would then be breaking

JoelSpeed · 2025-09-04T10:12:38Z

controlplane/eks/api/v1beta1/types.go

 	// This is also known as audience. The ID for the client application that makes
 	// authentication requests to the OpenID identity provider.
 	// +kubebuilder:validation:Required
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:MinLength=1


Have you verified that this ratchets?

JoelSpeed · 2025-09-04T10:13:02Z

controlplane/eks/api/v1beta1/types.go

 	//
 	// +kubebuilder:validation:Required
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:MinLength=1
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:Pattern=`^https://.+`


Might be better to use a CEL validation if possible, isURL likely more comprehensive

Did you have something like this in mind?

// +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:rule="isURL(self) && url(self).getScheme() == 'https'"

Exactly, and then you can add ,message="..." with a custom error message too

@JoelSpeed, the validation for https was addressed.

v47 · 2025-09-22T21:54:19Z

/retest

damdo · 2025-09-23T08:38:04Z

/retest

damdo · 2025-09-23T08:57:39Z

/retest

damdo · 2025-09-23T12:31:53Z

exp/api/v1beta2/awsmachinepool_types.go

 	// AWSLaunchTemplate specifies the launch template and version to use when an instance is launched.
 	// +kubebuilder:validation:Required
-	AWSLaunchTemplate AWSLaunchTemplate `json:"awsLaunchTemplate"`
+	AWSLaunchTemplate AWSLaunchTemplate `json:"awsLaunchTemplate,omitzero"`


I think doing this causes an issue in the tests because it omits the zero value for this which is required by the validation checks:

AWSMachinePool.infrastructure.cluster.x-k8s.io "test" is invalid: spec.awsLaunchTemplate: Required value

See: https://prow.k8s.io/view/gs/kubernetes-ci-logs/pr-logs/pull/kubernetes-sigs_cluster-api-provider-aws/5643/pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-test/1970412246974599168#

yup, saw it, but now for me it's a question, how required AWSLaunchTemplate should be treated?

@damdo @JoelSpeed sorry, do you have an opinion about the changes related to AWSMachinePool?

How did you fix it? Did you run generation again?

https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-aws/pull/5643/files#diff-870af3af95309601f80ec2a719be848510d92c57065a88a5f465ac646259db55R101
i added AWSLaunchTemplate in the tests.

Ok thanks, let's see what @JoelSpeed thinks of the overall changes

The linter is basically saying that you should require a non-zero AWSMachineTemplate. Does the AWSMachineTemplate have any required fields presently? Or can I today commit {} to the API and that be valid?

enabled commentstart linter and addressed findings

44bbc87

k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Sep 3, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from damdo and fiunchinho September 3, 2025 00:32

k8s-ci-robot added needs-priority needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 3, 2025

v47 mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2025

[KAL] Enable commentstart linter #5485

Open

k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Sep 3, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Sep 3, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 4, 2025

Updated kube-api-linter version to the latest. After update relax con…

43a07db

…ditions checks in .golangci-kal.yml (comment out conditions config). The older version was not picking them.

v47 force-pushed the enable-commentstart-linter branch from 2f48458 to 43a07db Compare September 4, 2025 01:22

v47 changed the title ~~🌱 enable commentstart linter~~ 🌱 enable requiredfields linter Sep 4, 2025

JoelSpeed reviewed Sep 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

use a CEL validation for URLs

99178e8

v47 force-pushed the enable-commentstart-linter branch from 9781f5b to 99178e8 Compare September 20, 2025 00:03

damdo reviewed Sep 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

In awsMachinePool tests added a AWSLaunchTemplate data

216ebdd

v47 force-pushed the enable-commentstart-linter branch from 11bc858 to 216ebdd Compare September 23, 2025 13:27

🌱 enable requiredfields linter #5643

Are you sure you want to change the base?

🌱 enable requiredfields linter #5643

Conversation

v47 commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

fiunchinho commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

damdo commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

richardcase commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

v47 commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

damdo commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

damdo commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!