Multi-Cluster: Adds v1alpha1 API Types and Docs #1658
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/documentation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
✅ Deploy Preview for gateway-api-inference-extension ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/XXL
|
Hold until #1374 is merged. /hold |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
| // | ||
| // Controllers MAY raise this condition with other reasons, but should | ||
| // prefer to use the reasons listed above to improve interoperability. | ||
| InferencePoolConditionExported InferencePoolConditionType = "Exported" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the value for a non-exported InferencePool? "Invalid" doesn't sound right IMO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah +1, Added some suggested reasons above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here are a few other options we can take:
- Do not define the reason at this time and leave it up to the implementation to surface.
- Rename "Invalid" to "Unknown" or "ApplyFailed" and require a message to be set with additional details.
- Proceed with https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api-inference-extension/pull/1658/files#r2383650354 recommendations.
WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Commit f0fbeb9 proceeds with option 3 above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the recommendations in 3. If the InferencePool has not been exported, then that should be clear
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @danehans! This mostly LGTM. I'm going to be OOO for the next few days but please feel free to go ahead and move forward with this once my comments are resolved. @bexxmodd can also help with the reviews here. I'm sure we'll still have some things to tweak after we merge this, but I'd rather get something in soon so we can start on the implementation side.
api/v1/inferencepool_types.go
Outdated
| // | ||
| // Possible reasons for this condition to be False are: | ||
| // | ||
| // * "Invalid" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we can start with these? Implementations can always add more as they see fit.
| // * "Invalid" | |
| // * "NotRequested" | |
| // * "NotSupported" |
| // | ||
| // Controllers MAY raise this condition with other reasons, but should | ||
| // prefer to use the reasons listed above to improve interoperability. | ||
| InferencePoolConditionExported InferencePoolConditionType = "Exported" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah +1, Added some suggested reasons above.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: danehans, robscott 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 |
Signed-off-by: Daneyon Hansen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daneyon Hansen <[email protected]>
danehans
force-pushed
the
issue_1654
branch
from
c469119 to
f0fbeb9
Compare
|
@danehans: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind documentation
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1654
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: