Conditions for Policy Attachment

[robscott]

What would you like to be added:
As discussed in #715 (comment) and #590, any form of status per policy is going to be complex. These conditions may need to be per controller or even per referencing resource (ie policy targeting Route that is also targeted by several Gateways).

Why this is needed:
Although each implementation can currently take whichever approach makes the most sense for them, it would be better to standardize on this.

GEP: #713

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Mark this issue or PR as rotten with /lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle rotten

[youngnick]

/remove-lifecycle rotten

We will need to address this more, but it needs some more work on actually using Policy.

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Mark this issue or PR as rotten with /lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[hbagdi]

/lifecycle frozen

[shaneutt]

Where are we at with this one? 🤔

[robscott]

I think we still need this.

/help

[k8s-ci-robot]

@robscott:
This request has been marked as needing help from a contributor.

Guidelines

Please ensure that the issue body includes answers to the following questions:

• Why are we solving this issue?
• To address this issue, are there any code changes? If there are code changes, what needs to be done in the code and what places can the assignee treat as reference points?
• Does this issue have zero to low barrier of entry?
• How can the assignee reach out to you for help?

For more details on the requirements of such an issue, please see here and ensure that they are met.

If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed
by commenting with the /remove-help command.

In response to this:

I think we still need this.

/help

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/test-infra repository.

[shaneutt]

There's been a single status for policy attachment added so far which is great, but for GA this isn't a blocker. We want this feature, but we consider it low priority until v1.0.0/GA is complete and don't believe we will have bandwidth for it until then.

[mikemorris]

This may be a bit controversial given how complex policy already is, but we have a use case in Istio for adding a PartiallyInvalid PolicyConditionType and UnsupportedValue PolicyConditonReason to mirror the existing type and reason in HTTPRoute.

[jgao1025]

/assign

I was looking for a ticket suitable for a new contributor, but the one I was working on has been taken by someone else. I found this ticket, which might be a bit of a challenge for me, but it seems detailed enough for me to work on. I'll try to make some progress on it this weekend.

[mikemorris]

Hmm, there has been some initial work on this in GEP-2648 around expected status conditions for policy resources and the PolicyAncestorStatus structure (see reference docs for more details).

I'm not quite sure what is immediately actionable on this issue, so it may not be the best for a new contributor but hopefully we can help you find something more straightforward to work on @jgao1025

[jgao1025]

@mikemorris Thanks for replying. Given the fact that this issue is in the backup so there is no urgency for the team to implement it, I would possibly spend months to break down the ticket and work on this. So it won't be entirely impossible for a new contributor to work out this one.

To start to work out this one. I plan to have following steps:

1. work out dev environment and see if I can build a new dev version successfully on my local environment. (workload: ~3h; finish on 4/08/2024) - actually done on 10/08/2024; I think it is better to enhance the dev doc to clarify a few points; I raised Clarify a few points on Development Documentation.  #3260 to try to fix/trace my concern.
2. play around gateway API and its general concepts. Follow this and this. (workload: ~5h; finish before 11/08/2024 ) - actually done on 17 Aug 2024.
3. understand GEP-2648: Direct Policy Attachment and find out how to test it. (workload: ~a few days; finish before 18/08/2024)
4. Understand status conditions and find out where to add the code. (workload: ~ a few days; finish before 1/09/2024)
5. implement manual testing steps for testing new status conditions that I added. (workload: < 1 day; finish before 8/09/2024)
6. submit a PR and waiting for reviewing/ editing/changing. (workload:1 week to months; no ETC)

[youngnick]

@jgao1025, great to see you starting work on this one, please feel free to reach out to me on Kubernetes slack @youngnick to have a chat about where this is at - I think that it would be good for me to walk you through some context before you get too far into work here.