Thanks for the proposal. As I understand it the idea is to make the status of a Flink deployment more accessible to standard k8s tooling, which would be a nice improvement and further strengthen the k8s native experience!
Regarding the FLIP document's overall structure: Before diving into the implementation details, can we please expand the intro with the motivation/rationale for this change? A few examples of the audience that would benefit from this change. Examples of tools that would pick up the condition and how that would look like (link or screenshot if you have it). Regarding multiple conditions: +1 for not commingling reconciliation status and job status. It would make the resulting condition confusing. I believe what the user would expect under "Ready" is the representation of the job status. We can then add another separate condition as suggested, however can the FLIP document also outline if/how conditions other than "Ready" would appear in the generic k8s tooling? Thanks, Thomas On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 10:37 AM David Radley <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi Mate and Gyula, > Thank you very much for your clarifications; it is clearer for me now. I > agree that a reconciliation condition would be useful – maybe reconciled > instead of ready for the boolean, so it is very explicit. > > Your suggestion of a job related readiness condition related to it’s > health would be useful; you suggest it be user configurable – this seems > closer to a liveliness / readiness probe. > > Kind regards, David. > > From: Mate Czagany <czmat...@gmail.com> > Date: Thursday, 30 May 2024 at 10:39 > To: dev@flink.apache.org <dev@flink.apache.org> > Cc: morh...@apache.org <morh...@apache.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-XXX Add K8S conditions to Flink CRD > Hi, > > I would definitely keep this as a FLIP. Not all FLIPs have to be big > changes, and this format makes it easier for others to chime in and follow. > > I am not a Kubernetes expert, but my understanding is that we don't have to > follow any strict convention for the type names in the conditions, e.g. > "Ready" or "Error". And as Gyula said it doesn't add too much value in the > currently proposed way, it might even be confusing for users who have not > read this email thread or FLIP because "Ready" might suggest that the job > is running and is healthy. So my suggestion is the same as Gyulas, to have > more explicit type names instead of just "Ready" and "Error". However > "ClusterReady" sounds weird in case of FlinkSessionJobs. > > Regarding appending to the conditions field: if I understand the FLIP > correctly, we would allow multiple elements of the same type to exist in > the conditions list if the message and reason fields are different. From > the Kubernetes documentation it seems like the correct way would be to use > the "type" field as the map key and merge the fields [1]. > > > [1] > > https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/bce55b94cdc3a4592749aa919c591fa7df7453eb/staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1/types.go#L1528 > > Best regards, > Mate > > Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2024. máj. 30., Cs, > 10:53): > > > David, > > > > The problem is exactly that ResourceLifecycleStates do not correspond to > > specific Job statuses (JobReady condition) in most cases. Let me give > you a > > concrete example: > > > > ResourceLifecycleState.STABLE means that app/job defined in the spec has > > been successfully deployed and was observed running, and this spec is now > > considered to be stable (won't be rolled back). Once a resource > > (FlinkDeployment) reached STABLE state, it won't change unless the user > > changes the spec. At the same time, this doesn't really say anything > about > > job health/readiness at any given future time. 10 minutes later the job > can > > go in an unrecoverable failure loop and never reach a running status, the > > ResourceLifecycleState will remain STABLE. > > > > This is actually not a problem with the ResourceLifecycleState but more > > with the understanding of it. It's called ResourceLifecycleState and not > > JobState exactly because it refers to the upgrade/rollback/suspend etc > > lifecycle of the FlinkDeployment/FlinkSessionJob resource and not the > > underlying flink job itself. > > > > But this is a crucial detail here that we need to consider otherwise the > > "Ready" condition that we may create will be practically useless. > > > > This is the reason why @morh...@apache.org <morh...@apache.org> and > > I suggest separating this to at least 2 independent conditions. One could > > be the UpgradeCompleted/ReconciliationCompleted or something along these > > lines computed based on LifecycleState (as described in your proposal but > > with a different name). The other should be JobReady which could > initially > > work based on the JobStatus.state field but ideally would be user > > configurable ready condition such as (job running at least 10 minutes, > > running and have taken checkpoints etcetc). > > > > These 2 conditions should be enough to start with and would actually > > provide a tangible value to users. We can probably leave out ClusterReady > > on a second thought. > > > > Cheers, > > Gyula > > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 5:16 PM David Radley <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Gyula, > > > Thank you for the quick response and confirmation we need a Flip. I am > > not > > > an expert at K8s, Lajith will answer in more detail. Some questions I > had > > > anyway: > > > > > > I assume each of the ResourceLifecycleState do have a corresponding > > > jobReady status. You point out some mistakes in the table, for example > > that > > > STABLE should be NotReady; thankyou. If we put a reason mentioning the > > > stable state, this would help us understand the jobStatus. > > > > > > I guess the jobReady is one perspective that we know is useful (with > > > corrected mappings from ResourceLifecycleState and with reasons). Can > I > > > check that the 2 proposed conditions would also be useful additions? I > > > assume that in your proposal when jobReady is true, then > > UpgradeCompleted > > > condition would not be present and ClusterReady would always be true? I > > > know conditions do not need to be orthogonal, but I wanted to check > what > > > your thoughts are. > > > > > > Kind regards, David. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > Date: Wednesday, 29 May 2024 at 15:28 > > > To: dev@flink.apache.org <dev@flink.apache.org> > > > Cc: morh...@apache.org <morh...@apache.org> > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-XXX Add K8S conditions to Flink > > CRD > > > Hi David! > > > > > > This change definitely warrants a FLIP even if the code change is not > > huge, > > > there are quite some implications going forward. > > > > > > Looping in @morh...@apache.org <morh...@apache.org> for this > discussion. > > > > > > I have some questions / suggestions regarding the condition's meaning > and > > > naming. > > > > > > In your proposal you have: > > > - Ready (True/False) -> This condition is intended for resources which > > are > > > fully ready and operational > > > - Error (True) -> This condition can be used in scenarios where any > > > exception/error during resource reconcile process > > > > > > The problem with the above is that the implementation does not well > > reflect > > > this. ResourceLifecycleState STABLE/ROLLED_BACK does not actually mean > > the > > > job is running, it just means that the resource is fully reconciled and > > it > > > will not be rolled back (so the current pending upgrade is completed). > > This > > > is mainly a fault of the ResourceLifecycleState as it doesn't capture > the > > > job status but one could argue that it was "designed" this way. > > > > > > I think we should probably have more condition types to capture the > > > difference: > > > - JobReady (True/False) -> Flink job is running (Basically job status > > but > > > with transition time) > > > - ClusterReady (True/False) -> Session / Application cluster is > deployed > > > (Basically JM deployment status but with transition time) > > > - UpgradeCompleted (True/False) -> Similar to what you call Ready now > > > which should correspond to the STABLE/ROLLED_BACK states and mostly > > tracks > > > in-progress CR updates > > > > > > This is my best idea at the moment, not great as it feels a little > > > redundant with the current status fields. But maybe thats not a problem > > or > > > a way to eliminate the old fields later? > > > > > > I am not so sure of the Error status and what this means in practice. > Why > > > do we want to track the last error in 2 places? It's already in the > > status. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > Gyula > > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 3:55 PM David Radley <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks Lajith for raising this discussion thread under the Flip > title. > > > > > > > > To summarise the concerns from the other discussion thread. > > > > > > > > “ > > > > - I echo Gyula that including some examples and further explanations > > > might > > > > ease reader's work. With the current version, the FLIP is a bit hard > to > > > > follow. - Will the usage of Conditions be enabled by default? Or will > > > there > > > > be any disadvantages for Flink users? If Conditions with the same > type > > > > already exist in the Status Conditions > > > > > > > > - Do you think we should have clear rules about handling rules for > how > > > > these Conditions should be managed, especially when multiple > Conditions > > > of > > > > the same type are present? For example, resource has multiple causes > > for > > > > the same condition (e.g., Error due to network and Error due to I/O). > > > Then, > > > > overriding the old condition with the new one is not the best > approach > > > no? > > > > Please correct me if I misunderstood. > > > > “ > > > > > > > > I see the Google doc link has been reformatted to match the Flip > > > template. > > > > > > > > To explicitly answer the questions from Jeyhun and Gyula: > > > > - “Will the usage of Conditions be enabled by default?” Yes, but this > > is > > > > just making the status content useful, whereas before it was not > > useful. > > > > - in terms of examples, I am not sure what you would like to see, the > > > > table Lajith provided shows the status for various > > > ResourceLifecycleStates. > > > > How the operator gets into these states is the current behaviour. The > > > > change just shows the appropriate corresponding high level status – > > that > > > > could be shown on the User Interfaces. > > > > - “will there be any disadvantages for Flink users?” None , there is > > just > > > > more information in the status, without this it is more difficult to > > work > > > > out the status of the job. > > > > - Multiple conditions question. The status is showing whether the job > > is > > > > ready or not, so as long as the last condition is the one that is > > shown - > > > > all is as expected. I don’t think this needs rules for precedence and > > the > > > > like. > > > > - The condition’s Reason is going to be more specific. > > > > > > > > Gyula and Jeyhun, is the google doc clear enough for you now? Do you > > feel > > > > you feedback has been addressed? Lajith and I are happy to provide > more > > > > details. > > > > > > > > I wonder whether this change is big enough to warrant a Flip, as it > is > > so > > > > small. We could do this in an issue. WDYT? > > > > > > > > Kind regards, David. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Lajith Koova <lajith...@gmail.com> > > > > Date: Wednesday, 29 May 2024 at 13:41 > > > > To: dev@flink.apache.org <dev@flink.apache.org> > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [DISCUSS] FLIP-XXX Add K8S conditions to Flink > CRD > > > > Hello , > > > > > > > > > > > > Discussion thread here: > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/dvy8w17pyjv68c3t962w49frl9odoz4z to > > > > discuss a proposal to add Conditions field in the CR status of Flink > > > > Deployment and FlinkSessionJob. > > > > > > > > > > > > Note : Starting this new thread as discussion thread title has been > > > > modified to follow the FLIP process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > Unless otherwise stated above: > > > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited > > > > Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 > 3AU > > > > > > > > > > Unless otherwise stated above: > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited > > > Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU > > > > > > > Unless otherwise stated above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited > Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU >
