Skip to content

[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field #957

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 14 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field #957

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
14 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
afdf40b
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 Mar 12, 2025
1d84164
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 Mar 12, 2025
727bb4b
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 Mar 15, 2025
c66fd1f
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 Mar 19, 2025
c623f33
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 Mar 26, 2025
196c494
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 Mar 28, 2025
32294f4
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 Mar 28, 2025
7b6d6a1
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 May 12, 2025
4f6679b
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 May 12, 2025
93be98a
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 May 14, 2025
9faab16
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 May 14, 2025
b40dcf3
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 May 16, 2025
70030db
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 May 16, 2025
9311031
[FLINK-33634] Add Conditions to Flink CRD's Status field
lajith2006 May 18, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
176 changes: 176 additions & 0 deletions .../src/main/java/org/apache/flink/kubernetes/operator/api/status/FlinkDeploymentStatus.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -18,17 +18,22 @@
package org.apache.flink.kubernetes.operator.api.status;

import org.apache.flink.annotation.Experimental;
import org.apache.flink.api.common.JobStatus;
import org.apache.flink.kubernetes.operator.api.spec.FlinkDeploymentSpec;
import org.apache.flink.kubernetes.operator.api.utils.ConditionUtils;

import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonIgnoreProperties;
import io.fabric8.kubernetes.api.model.Condition;
import lombok.AllArgsConstructor;
import lombok.Data;
import lombok.EqualsAndHashCode;
import lombok.NoArgsConstructor;
import lombok.ToString;
import lombok.experimental.SuperBuilder;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Map;

/** Last observed status of the Flink deployment. */
Expand All @@ -55,4 +60,175 @@ public class FlinkDeploymentStatus extends CommonStatus<FlinkDeploymentSpec> {

/** Information about the TaskManagers for the scale subresource. */
private TaskManagerInfo taskManager;

/** Condition of the CR . */
private List<Condition> conditions = new ArrayList<>();

private String phase;

public List<Condition> getConditions() {
if (reconciliationStatus != null
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am curious which parts of the code refer to application mode and which are session cluster. It would be good to have some comments to detail this and maybe use the mode name in method name or variable names to make this more intuitive to read.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I will add comments in the respective code.

&& reconciliationStatus.deserializeLastReconciledSpec() != null
&& reconciliationStatus.deserializeLastReconciledSpec().getJob() == null) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should avoid deserializing twice here, could we simply check the job status instead?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure will use JobStatus.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we derive the mode from Jobstatus.state, it looks like , there is a chance of misleading information in the condition status.

For example, it is observed that, when an existing session cluster is updated with some information , for example with checkpoint interval changed to new value, we can see that state is updated with value as FINISHED as below

status:
clusterInfo:
jobManagerDeploymentStatus: READY
jobStatus:
checkpointInfo:
lastPeriodicCheckpointTimestamp: 0
savepointInfo:
lastPeriodicSavepointTimestamp: 0
savepointHistory: []
state: FINISHED

So, if we derive the running state from JobStatus, by looking at the state value , we end up condition for above as Running false. But if we look at the jobManagerDeploymentStatus: READY, we are supposed to say that condition as Running true as it is session cluster, and it's says that session is ready to receive the request.

switch (jobManagerDeploymentStatus) {
Copy link

@davidradl davidradl Mar 21, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can we have a datastructure, keyed off the jobManagerDeploymentStatus, that we interrogate to get the inserts for the updateConditions. Maybe a map with the key of the status and the value of an object RunningCondition, that has 2 fields the boolean and the description. Something like :


Map<JobManagerDeploymentStatus,String> jobmanagerDeploymentStatusMap = new HashMap<String,String>() {{
    put(READY, new RunningCondition(true, "JobManager is running and ready to receive REST API calls")),
    ....
}};

then the code just loops through the map updating conditions using the map values. Similar for jobstatus

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wondering will that add any value?. Any way to build the Map , we have to call ConditionUtils to build the Condition, so rather than have a Prebuild Map , we can directly call ConditionUtils to build them right. Your thoughts?.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you have pre built the map now - with map.of - looks good - thanks.

case READY:
Copy link

@davidradl davidradl Apr 10, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

instead of this switch can we just issue

updateCondition(
                           conditions,
                           ConditionUtils.crCondition(
                                   ConditionUtils.SESSION_MODE_CONDITION.get(
                                           jobManagerDeploymentStatus.name())));

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@davidradl this has been revisited and made it simple by removing switch.

updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningTrue(
"JobManager is running and ready to receive REST API call",
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: call -> calls

"JobManager is running and ready to receive REST API call"));
break;
case MISSING:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
"JobManager deployment not found",
"JobManager deployment not found"));
break;
case DEPLOYING:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
"JobManager process is starting up",
"JobManager process is starting up"));
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am curious why the message and reaon is the same . I would expect them to be different. In this case I would expect the reason to be "A New JVM deployment exists and is being created" - i.e. the word on the arrow in the UML.

Copy link
Author

@lajith2006 lajith2006 Mar 26, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As per description here which says Reason is intended to be a one-word, CamelCase representation of the category of cause of the current status, and Message is intended to be a human-readable phrase or sentence, I would use the existing enum https://github.com/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator/blob/main/flink-kubernetes-operator-api/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/kubernetes/operator/api/status/JobManagerDeploymentStatus.java, to use as reason and respective explanation as message

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see https://github.com/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator/pull/961/files, gives examples of camelcase single words reasons. We should follow that style for the cases that PR does not cover.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done a refactoring for the conditions.

break;
case DEPLOYED_NOT_READY:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
"JobManager is running but not ready yet to receive REST API calls",
"JobManager is running but not ready yet to receive REST API calls"));
break;
case ERROR:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
"Deployment in terminal error, requires spec change for reconciliation to continue",
"JobManager deployment failed"));
}
} else if (getJobStatus() != null && getJobStatus().getState() != null) {
switch (getJobStatus().getState()) {
Copy link

@davidradl davidradl Apr 10, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can this switch as-is be replaced with

 updateCondition(
                            conditions,
                            ConditionUtils.crCondition(
                                    ConditionUtils.APPLICATION_MODE_CONDITION.get(
                                            getJobStatus().getState().name())));

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was thinking exactly the same here @lajith2006

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, @gyfora and @davidradl this has been revisited and addressed by removing switch and made it simple.

case RECONCILING:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
JobStatus.RECONCILING.name(), "Job is currently reconciling"));
break;
case CREATED:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
JobStatus.CREATED.name(), "Job is created"));
break;
case RUNNING:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningTrue(JobStatus.RUNNING.name(), "Job is running"));
break;
case FAILING:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
JobStatus.FAILING.name(), "Job has failed"));
break;
case RESTARTING:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
JobStatus.RESTARTING.name(),
"The job is currently undergoing a restarting"));
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: "The job is currently undergoing a restarting" -> "The job is currently restarting"

break;
case FAILED:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
JobStatus.FAILED.name(),
"The job has failed with a non-recoverable task failure"));
break;
case FINISHED:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
JobStatus.FINISHED.name(),
"Job's tasks have successfully finished"));
break;

case CANCELED:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
JobStatus.CANCELED.name(), "Job has been cancelled"));
break;
case SUSPENDED:
updateCondition(
conditions,
ConditionUtils.runningFalse(
JobStatus.SUSPENDED.name(), "The job has been suspended"));
break;
}
}
return conditions;
}

public String getPhase() {
if (reconciliationStatus != null
&& reconciliationStatus.deserializeLastReconciledSpec() != null
&& reconciliationStatus.deserializeLastReconciledSpec().getJob() == null) {
switch (jobManagerDeploymentStatus) {
case READY:
phase = "Running";
break;
case MISSING:
case ERROR:
case DEPLOYING:
phase = "Pending";
break;
}
} else if (getJobStatus() != null && getJobStatus().getState() != null) {
switch (getJobStatus().getState()) {
case RECONCILING:
phase = "Pending";
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why is this one not RECONCILING like the pattern the others follow others? I suggest a comment, also a constant is better then a an inline literal.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Right, as mentioned here , phase which is intended to keep the current status of FlinkDeployment especially useful in Openshift environment, as Openshift UI can render the value from status.phase and populate the current status of deployment.

As when FlinkDeployment applied in Application Mode, in the initial phase, as the JM brining up , job state would be in RECONCILING state, so status.phase is kept as "Pending".

break;
case CREATED:
phase = JobStatus.CREATED.name();
break;
case RUNNING:
phase = JobStatus.RUNNING.name();
break;
case FAILING:
phase = JobStatus.FAILING.name();
break;
case RESTARTING:
phase = JobStatus.RESTARTING.name();
break;
case FAILED:
phase = JobStatus.FAILED.name();
break;
case FINISHED:
phase = JobStatus.FINISHED.name();
break;
case CANCELED:
phase = JobStatus.CANCELED.name();
break;
case SUSPENDED:
phase = JobStatus.SUSPENDED.name();
break;
}
}
return phase;
}

private static void updateCondition(List<Condition> conditions, Condition condition) {
if (conditions.isEmpty()) {
conditions.add(condition);
return;
}
// If new condition is same as last condition, ignore
Condition existingCondition = conditions.get(conditions.size() - 1);
if (existingCondition.getType().equals(condition.getType())
&& existingCondition.getMessage().equals(condition.getMessage())) {
return;
}
conditions.add(condition);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's maybe just me, just don't get how this list is truncated eventually, in other words, how is it prevented from growing indefinitely?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for review @csviri . Right now it's not preventing from growing indefinitely. As conditions reflects the different transitions state of Job/Deployment , thinking what could be the use case where can grow indefinitely?.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think there should only ever be a single condition of type Running in the list that we return. Since we only have a single condition type right now, then the list should only have a single element. The latestTransition timestamp needs to represent when running changed from true->false or false->true. We can however keep updating the message if we want.

Copy link
Author

@lajith2006 lajith2006 Apr 10, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @gyfora for review , If I read correctly , you meant that we need to have only condition in the list at right now as we have only one type Running instead of multiple conditions of same type Running in the list as currently this PR having. And the lastTransitionTime in the condition must represent when the Running type changed its status from true>false or false > true. Is that correct?.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@lajith2006 you say the lastTransitionTime in the condition must represent when the Running type changed its status from true>false or false > true. Is that correct?. So I am curious what happens in the history if we change the reason Text? Can you check that if we change the reason text and not the running flag, we see all of the entries in the history if all the historical conditions have the same lastTransitionTime with changing reasons.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes @lajith2006 , there should be a single condition of type Running and lastTransitionTime when that changed

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for clarification @gyfora

So just to be align with what you have mentioned , for an example , when we do an application cluster deployment, as Job cycles goes through CREATED>RUNNING

initially conditions will have as below

status
  conditions:
    - type: Running
      status: "False"
      reason: Job is created
      message: "Job is newly created, no task has started to run"
      lastTransitionTime: 2025-04-030T06:17:08Z

And then when the Job starts running at 2025-04-030T06:19:01Z , condition will have as below

status
  conditions:
    - type: Running
      status: "True"
      reason: Job is running
      message: "Job is running"
      lastTransitionTime: 2025-04-030T06:19:01Z

and then later at 2025-04-030T07:00:01Z. when job gets finished , condition will have as below.

status
  conditions:
    - type: Running
      status: "False"
      reason: Job's tasks have successfully finished
      message: Job's tasks have successfully finished
      lastTransitionTime: 2025-04-030T07:00:01Z

which means ideally we will not have an history in the condition when the Job goes through different job lifecycle , instead only single condition and lastTransitionTime will reflect when the status was changed.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I think this makes sense for a Running condition

}
}
51 changes: 51 additions & 0 deletions ...ator-api/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/kubernetes/operator/api/utils/ConditionUtils.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
/*
* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
* contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
* this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
* The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
* (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
* the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*/

package org.apache.flink.kubernetes.operator.api.utils;

import io.fabric8.kubernetes.api.model.Condition;
import io.fabric8.kubernetes.api.model.ConditionBuilder;

import java.text.SimpleDateFormat;
import java.util.Date;

/**
* Creates a condition object with the specified parameters.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: with the specified parameters -> whether this is running , the message and the reason.
then for return just say @return A condition

*
* @return A condition object with the type, message, status, reason and timestamp.
*/
public class ConditionUtils {
public static Condition runningTrue(final String message, final String reason) {
return crCondition("Running", "True", message, reason);
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no need to pass "Running" as a parameter, we can hard code that in the method,

nit: rename crCondition -> crRunningCondition

Copy link
Author

@lajith2006 lajith2006 Mar 26, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would like to keep method name as crCondition rather crRunningCondition , just because , crCondition will keep it as more generic , so that if in case, if we need to address any other condition with type other than Running , we just need to pass parameter to build respective condition.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I suggest doing that refactor when we need to, in the spirit of keeping the code lean.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@davidradl There were some refactoring done on this class.

}

public static Condition runningFalse(final String message, final String reason) {
return crCondition("Running", "False", message, reason);
Copy link

@davidradl davidradl Mar 21, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

are there constants / enums for "False" and "True" we can use?
Os there an existing constant for "Running" we can use from OCP or the like. If not we should define this as a constant. We use this literal a few times in this change.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I haven't see any existing enum/constants for "False" / "True , instead looks like used as string itself in wherever required in existing code.

}

private static Condition crCondition(
final String type, final String status, final String message, final String reason) {
return new ConditionBuilder()
.withType(type)
.withStatus(status)
.withMessage(message)
.withReason(reason)
.withLastTransitionTime(
new SimpleDateFormat("yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss'Z'").format(new Date()))
.build();
}
}
Loading