⚠️ Change type of int32 fields with valid zero value to *int32 #12424

sbueringer · 2025-06-30T19:18:06Z

Signed-off-by: Stefan Büringer [email protected]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Part of #10852

sbueringer · 2025-06-30T19:18:16Z

Ready for review, but we might want to merge another PR first

sbueringer · 2025-06-30T19:18:32Z

/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main

sbueringer · 2025-06-30T19:25:13Z

/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main

sbueringer · 2025-06-30T19:25:20Z

/assign @JoelSpeed @fabriziopandini

sbueringer · 2025-07-01T05:47:40Z

/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main

JoelSpeed

/lgtm
/approve

JoelSpeed · 2025-07-01T07:50:04Z

api/controlplane/kubeadm/v1beta2/kubeadm_control_plane_types.go

@@ -758,7 +758,7 @@ type KubeadmControlPlaneV1Beta1DeprecatedStatus struct {
 	// Deprecated: This field is deprecated and is going to be removed when support for v1beta1 will be dropped. Please see https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/blob/main/docs/proposals/20240916-improve-status-in-CAPI-resources.md for more details.
 	//
 	// +optional
-	UnavailableReplicas int32 `json:"unavailableReplicas"`
+	UnavailableReplicas int32 `json:"unavailableReplicas"` //nolint:kubeapilinter // field will be removed when v1beta1 is removed


Just a note, when we are doing noline:kubeapilinter in the future, it's better to use the regex based excludes so that we can exclude single messages rather than entire fields from being checked across all rules.

In this case since it's going away, this is fine though

Good point, but I thought there is less harm in a local nolint vs an exclude which might match other fields accidentally in this case (we have some of these fields with the same name elsewhere)

I think you can scope at least to package level and field name, so provided there aren't fields with duplicated names (which there probably are for us) then that would work. Would have to double check if we can scope more succinctly

I think in some cases it's the same CRD

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-07-01T07:52:49Z

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: f84766586984b5063c0a2c4cce3b168c81ac949e

sbueringer · 2025-07-01T08:04:16Z

/hold

For Fabrizio's review

sbueringer · 2025-07-01T09:57:28Z

/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main

sivchari · 2025-07-01T10:24:15Z

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-07-01T10:24:22Z

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 9269eb305097dd82675daa7408967d7b89bc11c7

sbueringer · 2025-07-01T10:31:35Z

/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main

fabriziopandini

Just a few nits, great job!

api/core/v1beta2/conversion.go

Signed-off-by: Stefan Büringer [email protected]

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-07-02T16:22:46Z

@sbueringer: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-cluster-api-apidiff-main	`bf8a7e2`	link	false	`/test pull-cluster-api-apidiff-main`

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.

fabriziopandini

/lgtm
/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-07-02T16:30:13Z

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: b9faddcbe74831a58a12d452d99f9fc803ecc2a3

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-07-02T16:30:15Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: fabriziopandini, JoelSpeed

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:

~~OWNERS~~ [JoelSpeed,fabriziopandini]

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

sbueringer · 2025-07-02T16:43:53Z

/hold cancel

k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/needs-area PR is missing an area label labels Jun 30, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from richardcase and sivchari June 30, 2025 19:18

k8s-ci-robot added the size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 30, 2025

sbueringer mentioned this pull request Jun 30, 2025

Umbrella issue: API changes in v1.11 / v1beta2 #10852

Closed

62 tasks

sbueringer force-pushed the pr-optionalfields-int32 branch from fc8c21e to 667d9d0 Compare June 30, 2025 19:25

k8s-ci-robot assigned fabriziopandini and JoelSpeed Jun 30, 2025

sbueringer added the area/api Issues or PRs related to the APIs label Jun 30, 2025

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/needs-area PR is missing an area label label Jun 30, 2025

JoelSpeed reviewed Jul 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 1, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 1, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. and removed lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. labels Jul 1, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from fabriziopandini and JoelSpeed July 1, 2025 09:57

sbueringer force-pushed the pr-optionalfields-int32 branch from eab51b8 to 98e2300 Compare July 1, 2025 10:03

k8s-ci-robot assigned sivchari Jul 1, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 1, 2025

fabriziopandini reviewed Jul 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

api/core/v1beta2/conversion.go Show resolved Hide resolved

api/core/v1beta2/conversion.go Show resolved Hide resolved

api/core/v1beta2/conversion.go Show resolved Hide resolved

sbueringer force-pushed the pr-optionalfields-int32 branch from 98e2300 to 7393050 Compare July 2, 2025 16:16

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 2, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from fabriziopandini July 2, 2025 16:16

k8s-ci-robot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 2, 2025

sbueringer added 2 commits July 2, 2025 18:19

Change type of int32 fields with valid zero value to *int32

b68c4f6

Signed-off-by: Stefan Büringer [email protected]

Fix review findings

bf8a7e2

sbueringer force-pushed the pr-optionalfields-int32 branch from 7393050 to bf8a7e2 Compare July 2, 2025 16:19

k8s-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 2, 2025

fabriziopandini reviewed Jul 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 2, 2025

fabriziopandini added the tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. label Jul 2, 2025

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jul 2, 2025

k8s-ci-robot merged commit ff6f736 into kubernetes-sigs:main Jul 2, 2025
18 of 19 checks passed

k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.11 milestone Jul 2, 2025

sbueringer deleted the pr-optionalfields-int32 branch July 2, 2025 16:45

⚠️ Change type of int32 fields with valid zero value to *int32 #12424

⚠️ Change type of int32 fields with valid zero value to *int32 #12424

Uh oh!

Conversation

sbueringer commented Jun 30, 2025

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jun 30, 2025

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jun 30, 2025

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jun 30, 2025

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jun 30, 2025

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jul 1, 2025

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed Jul 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sbueringer Jul 1, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed Jul 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sbueringer Jul 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 1, 2025

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jul 1, 2025

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jul 1, 2025

Uh oh!

sivchari commented Jul 1, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 1, 2025

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jul 1, 2025

Uh oh!

fabriziopandini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fabriziopandini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 2, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 2, 2025

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jul 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sbueringer Jul 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading