@lavalamp I've created this to try to have a place where we can at least consolidate our thoughts and track progress on third party resources. I've tried to create a list of known shortcomings to be resolved before promotion to stable.

I don't have an owner in mind, but recognition of the problem seems like step 1.

@deads2k I am learning third party resource recently, also wish to help with something.

@deads2k I am learning third party resource recently, also wish to help with something.

I've re-ordered the list in terms of what I see as tactical priority. People are trying to use this now and these problems will burn them badly.

If you're comfortable taking the "multiple resources" item, that would be a great start. You could create a separate issue and we can talk about implementation in there.

@deads2k I spent some time trying to reproduce the first issue:

Multiple Resources, single version, different add times - Adding resource A, waiting for it to appear, then adding resource B fails. Resource B is never added.

but with unluck. Below is my reproduce steps:

1. create a custom thirdparty resource&wait it to appear

[root@localhost kubernetes]# cat /home/tony/Desktop/debug/lbclaim.yaml
kind: ThirdPartyResource
apiVersion: extensions/v1beta1
metadata:
  name: loadbalancerclaim.k8s.io
description: "Allow user to claim a loadbalancer instance"
versions:
- name: v1
[root@localhost kubernetes]# kc create -f /home/tony/Desktop/debug/lbclaim.yaml
thirdpartyresource "loadbalancerclaim.k8s.io" created
[root@localhost kubernetes]# curl  http://localhost:8080/apis/extensions/v1beta1/thirdpartyresources/
{
  "kind": "ThirdPartyResourceList",
  "apiVersion": "extensions/v1beta1",
  "metadata": {
    "selfLink": "/apis/extensions/v1beta1/thirdpartyresources/",
    "resourceVersion": "170"
  },
  "items": [
    {
      "metadata": {
        "name": "loadbalancerclaim.k8s.io",
        "selfLink": "/apis/extensions/v1beta1/thirdpartyresources/loadbalancerclaim.k8s.io",
        "uid": "dcb88b3a-9857-11e6-a19b-08002767e1f5",
        "resourceVersion": "146",
        "creationTimestamp": "2016-10-22T13:03:01Z"
      },
      "description": "Allow user to claim a loadbalancer instance",
      "versions": [
        {
          "name": "v1"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}

1. after a moment(more than 10s), create another custom thirdparty resource

[root@localhost kubernetes]# cat /home/tony/Desktop/debug/loadbalancer.yaml
kind: ThirdPartyResource
apiVersion: extensions/v1beta1
metadata:
  name: loadbalancer.k8s.io
description: "Allow user to curd a loadbalancer instance"
versions:
- name: v1
[root@localhost kubernetes]# kc create -f /home/tony/Desktop/debug/loadbalancer.yaml
thirdpartyresource "loadbalancer.k8s.io" created

1. verify both resources exist

[root@localhost kubernetes]# curl http://localhost:8080/apis/k8s.io/v1/
{
  "kind": "APIResourceList",
  "apiVersion": "v1",
  "groupVersion": "k8s.io/v1",
  "resources": [
    {
      "name": "loadbalancerclaims",
      "namespaced": true,
      "kind": "Loadbalancerclaim"
    },
    {
      "name": "loadbalancers",
      "namespaced": true,
      "kind": "Loadbalancer"
    }
  ]
}
[root@localhost kubernetes]# kc get loadbalancers
No resources found.
[root@localhost kubernetes]# kc get loadbalancerclaims
No resources found.

seems we already support multiple resources, single version.

And I take a deep look at TPR related code. The thirdparty_controller will do periodically sync(every 10 seconds), it will install every new TPR, and also do some deletion job. The ThirdPartyResourceServer contains all installed TPR mappings. As we can see from SyncOneResource and InstallThirdPartyResource, even this this group exists, it will still update the group with the new API.

Also I found that I am able to delete a TPR schema def even there are TPR instances in the system. I think this should not be allowed.

@deads2k I spent some time trying to reproduce the first issue:

Try to enable this test: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/test/integration/thirdparty/thirdparty_test.go#L137 . If it works, we're good. If it fails, something is wrong.

@deads2k Hi David, please take a look at the message I sent on Slack. Besides, I add a fix to the failed integration test, the third party resource controller will remove the corresponding routes handler when a TPR get deleted, this will help with the integration test, but I am not sure whether this will bring in any other problems.

For problem #1, it was fixed here:

kubernetes/kubernetes#28414

@brendandburns actually not, you can run the comment out integration test, and it will fail.

@brendandburns More correctly, we did support multiple resources, single version, but the deletion logical has some problem.

@adohe did you file an issue? I can take a look.

@brendandburns you can see here:

https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/test/integration/thirdparty/thirdparty_test.go#L137 

enable this test, and you will see it will fail. I have tried to fix this on my local, and I will open a PR later today.

@brendandburns I am afraid I don't file an issue.

Also ref kubernetes/kubernetes#32306 (TPR should be deleted when namespace is deleted)

@deads2k can you update the checklist ?

@deads2k can you update the checklist ?

All issues still outstanding. This is actually a feature to track the problems in the (already) beta thirdparyresources implementation from 1.3. We needed a place to keep track of our problems, but had to devote energy to other efforts in 1.5.

@deads2k I am already working on Multiple Resources, single version and Multiple versions, I think a lot of code need to be update.

@deads2k does still feature still target 1.5?

Hello @nikhita @deads2k , I'm the Enhancement Lead for 1.15. Is this feature going to be graduating alpha/beta/stable stages in 1.15? Please let me know so it can be tracked properly and added to the spreadsheet. A KEP will need to be merged for 1.15 inclusion as well. Thanks!

Once coding begins, please list all relevant k/k PRs in this issue so they can be tracked properly.

this will remain in beta stage. work on validation, conversion, and OpenAPI publishing is happening in 1.15

updated description with links to relevant KEPs for 1.15

Hey, @liggitt @deads2k @jpbetz @sttts I'm the v1.15 docs release shadow.

Does this enhancement (or the work planned for v1.15) require any new docs (or modifications)?

Just a friendly reminder we're looking for a PR against k/website (branch dev-1.15) due by Thursday, May 30th. It would be great if it's the start of the full documentation, but even a placeholder PR is acceptable. Let me know if you have any questions! 😄

@deads2k @jpbetz @sttts @liggitt

Just a friendly reminder we're looking for a PR against k/website (branch dev-1.15) due by Thursday, May 30th. It would be great if it's the start of the full documentation, but even a placeholder PR is acceptable. Let me know if you have any questions! 😄

Docs PR for 1.15: kubernetes/website#14583

@deads2k can you update the issue description?

/milestone v1.16
/stage stable

Hey, @liggitt @jpbetz @sttts I'm the v1.16 docs release lead.

Does this enhancement (or the work planned for v1.16) require any new docs (or modifications)?

Just a friendly reminder we're looking for a PR against k/website (branch dev-1.16) due by Friday,August 23rd. Let me know if you have any questions!

@simonswine the placeholder PR kubernetes/website#15982

@liggitt @jpbetz @sttts Thursday is code freeze. Are there any outstanding k/k PRs that will prevent this from graduating to Stable? Everything in the original post for planned 1.15* work looks to be merged.

I believe the outstanding PRs are just the feature gate version bump (kubernetes/kubernetes#81965) and two outstanding bug fixes that should go in this week: kubernetes/kubernetes#81436, kubernetes/kubernetes#78707

docs ready for review in kubernetes/website#15982

Released as stable in v1.16.0

Post-GA work tracked in https://github.com/orgs/kubernetes/projects/28

/close

@liggitt: Closing this issue.