POC: Preserve the request scope's Kind through response object encoding by benluddy · Pull Request #141344 · kubernetes/kubernetes

benluddy · 2026-08-12T20:31:47Z

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

…t encoding with multiple kinds registered for the same go type

kubernetes-prow · 2026-08-12T20:31:50Z

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

kubernetes-prow · 2026-08-12T20:31:50Z

Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

Details

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.

kubernetes-prow · 2026-08-12T20:31:56Z

Please note that we're already in Code Freeze for the upcoming v1.37.0 release.

Adding the milestone to this PR is strictly prohibited without proper approval. If this PR needs to be included in the v1.37.0 release:

Technical review: get the PR reviewed and approved as usual (/lgtm and /approve)
Inclusion in release: tag @kubernetes/sig-release-leads on this PR and ping the #sig-release Slack channel to request adding the v1.37.0 milestone

We're also in Test Freeze for the release-1.37 branch. This means every merged PR will be automatically fast-forwarded via the periodic ci-fast-forward job to the release branch of the upcoming v1.37.0 release.

Fast forwards are scheduled to happen every 6 hours, whereas the most recent run was: Wed Aug 12 18:39:00 UTC 2026.

kubernetes-prow · 2026-08-12T20:31:56Z

This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

Details

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.

benluddy · 2026-08-12T20:34:02Z


 // LogResponseObject fills in the response object into an audit event. The passed runtime.Object
 // will be converted to the given gv.
-func LogResponseObject(ctx context.Context, obj runtime.Object, gv schema.GroupVersion, s runtime.NegotiatedSerializer) {


There are a few signatures like this one that can be widened to accept the interface runtime.GroupVersioner instead of schema.GroupVersion. These parameters were ultimately used as an Encoder's GroupVersioner anyway.

benluddy · 2026-08-12T20:36:18Z

-	Kind     schema.GroupVersionKind
+	Resource          schema.GroupVersionResource
+	Kind              schema.GroupVersionKind
+	ResourceVersioner ResourceGVK


Or a sibling ListKind?

what does Kind contain for list operations? Pod or PodList?

benluddy · 2026-08-12T20:38:18Z

 	// the caller may return a flag indicating whether the result should be flushed as writes occur
 	// and a content type string that indicates the type of the stream.
 	// If a null stream is returned, a StatusNoContent response wil be generated.
-	InputStream(ctx context.Context, apiVersion, acceptHeader string) (stream io.ReadCloser, flush bool, mimeType string, err error)


I didn't find any real implementations using this parameter, so removing it was the simplest option. I don't think this approach requires breaking this interface, though.

benluddy · 2026-08-12T20:39:45Z

+var _ rest.GroupVersionKindProvider = &multiKindStorage{}
+var _ rest.GroupVersionListKindProvider = &multiKindStorage{}
+
+func (s *multiKindStorage) GroupVersionKind(containingGV schema.GroupVersion) schema.GroupVersionKind {
+	return containingGV.WithKind(s.kind)
+}
+
+func (s *multiKindStorage) GroupVersionListKind(containingGV schema.GroupVersion) schema.GroupVersionKind {
+	return containingGV.WithKind(s.kind + "List")
+}


Without these, today:

F0806 13:38:16.417302 805429 openapi.go:46] Failed to build open api spec for root: duplicate Operation ID listTestgroupV1NamespacedFoo for path /apis/testgroup/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/bars and /apis/testgroup/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/foos

and

{ "kind": "APIResourceList", "apiVersion": "v1", "groupVersion": "testgroup/v1", "resources": [ { "name": "bars", "singularName": "bar", "namespaced": true, "kind": "Foo", <-------------- "verbs": [ "get", "list" ] }, { "name": "foos", "singularName": "foo", "namespaced": true, "kind": "Foo", "verbs": [ "get", "list" ] } ] }

kubernetes-prow · 2026-08-12T20:45:48Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: benluddy
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign sttts for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/OWNERS

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

benluddy · 2026-08-12T20:47:45Z

 	}
+	if isLister {
+		if listKindProvider, ok := storage.(rest.GroupVersionListKindProvider); ok {
+			reqScope.ResourceVersioner.ListKind = listKindProvider.GroupVersionListKind(a.group.GroupVersion)


I don't think it would be safe to assume the "singular kind + 'List'" convention for all API servers.

liggitt · 2026-08-25T17:56:44Z

@@ -395,7 +395,6 @@ func (storage *SimpleRESTStorage) List(ctx context.Context, options *metainterna
 }

 type SimpleStream struct {


nit: add a ResourceStreamer type assertion on this bit to directly catch the signature change?

liggitt · 2026-08-25T18:56:20Z

+	out, flush, contentType, err := stream.InputStream(req.Context(), req.Header.Get("Accept"))
 	if err != nil {
-		ErrorNegotiated(err, s, gv, w, req)
+		ErrorNegotiated(err, s, schema.GroupVersion{}, w, req)


passing schema.GroupVersion{} for GV here looks iffy

if callers like WriteObjectNegotiated have the groupversion today, switching the signature to GroupVersioner would make sense rather than throwing away that info

eitherwise, using either metav1.Unversioned or populating a groupversion out of the RequestInfo APIGroup/APIVersion pulled from the context might make more sense

liggitt · 2026-08-26T16:35:15Z

 	case (target.Kind == "PartialObjectMetadata" || target.Kind == "PartialObjectMetadataList" || target.Kind == "Table") &&
 		(target.GroupVersion() == metav1beta1.SchemeGroupVersion || target.GroupVersion() == metav1.SchemeGroupVersion):
-		return *target, apihelpers.GetMetaInternalVersionCodecs(), true
+		return target.GroupVersion(), apihelpers.GetMetaInternalVersionCodecs(), true


why throw away the kind info here? I thought we intended to make GVK implement GroupVersioner

liggitt · 2026-08-26T16:36:14Z

+
+func (r ResourceGVK) KindForGroupVersionKinds(kinds []schema.GroupVersionKind) (schema.GroupVersionKind, bool) {
+	for _, k := range kinds {
+		if k == r.Kind || (!r.ListKind.Empty() && k == r.ListKind) {


nit, hoist !r.ListKind.Empty() outside the loop

liggitt · 2026-08-26T16:38:28Z

+	}
+	for _, k := range kinds {
+		if k.Group == r.Kind.Group && k.Version == r.Kind.Version {
+			return k, true


returning a kind other than r.Kind.Kind is odd, right? what happens if we don't have this fallback? same question below for the group-only match

liggitt · 2026-08-26T16:38:43Z

+// type is registered under multiple Kind names in the same GroupVersion.
+type ResourceGVK struct {
+	Kind     schema.GroupVersionKind
+	ListKind schema.GroupVersionKind


storing a fully-qualified ListKind makes it possible for ListKind to not match the group or version of Kind (which would be weird) ... think about how to make that mismatch impossible

liggitt · 2026-08-26T16:40:11Z

-	Kind     schema.GroupVersionKind
+	Resource          schema.GroupVersionResource
+	Kind              schema.GroupVersionKind
+	ResourceVersioner ResourceGVK


what does Kind contain for list operations? Pod or PodList?

kubernetes-prow · 2026-09-25T21:16:43Z

PR needs rebase.

Details

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.

benluddy added 2 commits August 12, 2026 16:21

llm-generated tests to explore discovery, openapi, and response objec…

669fa78

…t encoding with multiple kinds registered for the same go type

poc of plumbing a full-GVK GroupVersioner to response encoding

9502a1a

kubernetes-prow Bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Aug 12, 2026

kubernetes-prow Bot added needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Aug 12, 2026

benluddy commented Aug 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

kubernetes-prow Bot requested a review from liggitt August 12, 2026 20:45

kubernetes-prow Bot added the area/apiserver label Aug 12, 2026

kubernetes-prow Bot requested a review from smarterclayton August 12, 2026 20:45

kubernetes-prow Bot added sig/api-machinery Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG API Machinery. sig/auth Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Auth. labels Aug 12, 2026

github-project-automation Bot added this to SIG Auth Aug 12, 2026

kubernetes-prow Bot removed the do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. label Aug 12, 2026

benluddy commented Aug 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

benluddy mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2026

Fix ConvertToVersion to prefer object's GVK field over first registered kind #135537

Open

enj moved this to Needs Triage in SIG Auth Aug 13, 2026

liggitt reviewed Aug 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

liggitt reviewed Aug 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

kubernetes-prow Bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Sep 25, 2026

lllamnyp mentioned this pull request Oct 2, 2026

chore(deps): move to the Kubernetes 1.37 libraries without the apimachinery fork cozystack/cozystack#4473

Merged

1 of 12 tasks

liggitt removed the request for review from smarterclayton October 27, 2026 21:26

		@@ -395,7 +395,6 @@ func (storage SimpleRESTStorage) List(ctx context.Context, options metainterna
		}

		type SimpleStream struct {

Conversation

benluddy commented Aug 12, 2026

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

Uh oh!

kubernetes-prow Bot commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

kubernetes-prow Bot commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

kubernetes-prow Bot commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

kubernetes-prow Bot commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kubernetes-prow Bot commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kubernetes-prow Bot commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

This branch has not been deployed

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants