Hi,

I can help to create a FLIP page, from the gdoc, but one thing
that I noteced is under "Session mode" both the text and the code
snippets refer to "FlinkDeployment". I believe that should be
"FlinkSessionJob".

Best,
Ferenc



On Wednesday, November 6th, 2024 at 17:33, David Radley 
<david_rad...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi lajith,
> Yes I like the simplicity of the current proposal.
> 
> Hi Gyula,
> The next stage is to assign a Flip number and move the content of the google 
> doc into the flip wiki. Unfortunately, as we are not committers, we are not 
> authorized to do either of these activities. Are you able to copy this over 
> or get another committer to do this please; so we can get this moving.
> 
> Kind regards, David.
> 
> From: Lajith Koova lajith...@gmail.com
> 
> Date: Monday, 14 October 2024 at 08:52
> To: dev@flink.apache.org dev@flink.apache.org
> 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-XXX Add K8S conditions to Flink CRD
> Thank you all for the valuable feedback .
> 
> 
> Following the procedure outlined on the Flink Improvement Proposal
> 
> Confluence page [1], we kindly ask the PMC/Committers to transfer the
> 
> content from the Add K8S conditions to CRD's Status [2] and assign a
> 
> FLIP Number for us, which we will use for voting.
> 
> 
> [1]
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals#FlinkImprovementProposals-Process
> 
> [2]
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12wlJCL_Vq2KZnABzK7OR7gAd1jZMmo0MxgXQXqtWODs/edit?tab=t.0
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Lajith
> 
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:54 PM Gyula Fóra gyula.f...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Hey!
> > 
> > I think the proposal is now simple enough :
> > - Running condition for Applications / SessionJobs
> > - Ready condition for Session clusters
> > 
> > I think we should formalize this into a Flip page and start the vote on
> > this from my side.
> > The next step to consider is having an independent condition that captures
> > the upgrade process itself (if a resource is fully upgraded / reconciled)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Gyula
> > 
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:16 PM David Radley david_rad...@uk.ibm.com
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Lajith,
> > > The updated document is much more detailed and looks good. As you say the
> > > only situation that is not handled currently is when there are multiple
> > > Flink jobs running in Application Mode.
> > > 
> > > As discussed , you are looking to test this situation so we know how it
> > > will perform.
> > > 
> > > When you say “During transition of Job state, there will be only one
> > > condition for the
> > > Flink Deployment in application mode.”. I am not sure I understand.
> > > 
> > > * I thought we have 1 condition per Flink job state, so I assume we
> > > have one true condition and potentially other historical false ones.
> > > * When you say during transition, are you thinking of some small time
> > > window between states. I am not sure what you are saying here.
> > > 
> > > Kind regards , David
> > > 
> > > From: Lajith Koova lajith...@gmail.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2024 at 03:01
> > > To: dev@flink.apache.org dev@flink.apache.org
> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-XXX Add K8S conditions to Flink
> > > CRD
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Here is the updated Proposal doc
> > > <
> > 
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12wlJCL_Vq2KZnABzK7OR7gAd1jZMmo0MxgXQXqtWODs/edit#heading=h.cz8x5nsncuwb
> > 
> > > .
> > > 
> > > *Summary : *
> > > 
> > > Session Mode:
> > > 
> > > Status conditions will be populated with status of Job manager.
> > > 
> > > Application Mode:
> > > 
> > > 1. In application mode , status conditions will be populated with status
> > > of
> > > Job running in the cluster.
> > > 
> > > 2. Each Flink Job state will have one condition associated with.
> > > 
> > > 3. During transition of Job state, there will be only one condition for
> > > the
> > > Flink Deployment in application mode.
> > > 
> > > 4. If there are multiple Jobs in application, how to handle them in
> > > populating the condition status?. does condition status should contain
> > > information about multiple jobs?.
> > > 
> > > Please let me know your inputs and suggestions.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > Lajith
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 10:25 AM Lajith Koova lajith...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Thank you Gyula for the feedback.
> > > > 
> > > > From the above proposed conditions, so will be having two conditions
> > > > as
> > > > below
> > > > 
> > > > status:
> > > > conditions:
> > > > - type: JobReady
> > > > message: The Job is running
> > > > reason: running
> > > > status: 'True'
> > > > lastTransitionTime: ''
> > > > - type: ReconciliationSucceed
> > > > message: The resource deployment is considered to be stable and won’t
> > > > be
> > > > rolled back
> > > > reason: stable
> > > > status: 'True'
> > > > lastTransitionTime: ''
> > > > 
> > > > Condition JobReady is derived from JobStatus and Condition
> > > > ReconciliationSucceed
> > > > derived from LifecycleState.
> > > > 
> > > > Please correct me if I missed anything.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Lajith K
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 2:23 PM Gyula Fóra gyula.f...@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 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
> 
> 
> Unless otherwise stated above:
> 
> IBM United Kingdom Limited
> Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
> Registered office: Building C, IBM Hursley Office, Hursley Park Road, 
> Winchester, Hampshire SO21 2JN

Reply via email to