Deprecate kubeconfig's preference field in favor of kuberc #131741

soltysh · 2025-05-13T11:41:44Z

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup
/kind documentation
/kind feature
/kind api-change
/kind deprecation

What this PR does / why we need it:

While updating the kuberc KEP I've noticed we explicitly said we'll deprecate the kubeconfig's preferences field.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Ref: kubernetes/enhancements#3104

Special notes for your reviewer:

/assign @ardaguclu
for sig-cli changes

/assign @liggitt
for api-review

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Deprecate preferences field in kubeconfig in favor of kuberc

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

- [KEP]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/3104

soltysh · 2025-05-13T11:42:09Z

/triage accepted
/priority important-longterm
/label api-review

soltysh · 2025-05-13T11:46:06Z

@liggitt a question for this deprecation, given this field is not used internally by any part of kubernetes codebase, can we consider entirely dropping it or we'll have to keep it deprecated?

liggitt · 2025-05-13T15:44:52Z

staging/src/k8s.io/client-go/tools/clientcmd/api/v1/types.go

@@ -51,6 +52,7 @@ type Config struct {
 	Extensions []NamedExtension `json:"extensions,omitempty"`
 }

+// Deprecated in v1.34 in favor of kuberc file (see https://kep.k8s.io/3104).
 type Preferences struct {
 	// +optional
 	Colors bool `json:"colors,omitempty"`


do we not even honor this field in kubectl? 🤦

looks like the only spot we use color is in the warning writer, and that just goes off of terminal autodetection and the NO_COLOR envvar

do we not even honor this field in kubectl? 🤦

Nope, it's just not used 😞

liggitt · 2025-05-13T16:13:51Z

@liggitt a question for this deprecation, given this field is not used internally by any part of kubernetes codebase, can we consider entirely dropping it or we'll have to keep it deprecated?

umm... we don't know what else is plumbing / persisting data in the extensions field, and given we named it extensions, it sort of invites opaque plumbing by out-of-tree stuff, so I think we should just keep it marked deprecated

liggitt · 2025-05-14T15:46:15Z

staging/src/k8s.io/client-go/tools/clientcmd/api/v1/types.go

@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ type Config struct {
 	// +optional
 	APIVersion string `json:"apiVersion,omitempty"`
 	// Preferences holds general information to be use for cli interactions
+	// Deprecated in v1.34 in favor of kuberc file (see https://kep.k8s.io/3104).


I'm not sure referencing kuberc here makes sense... nothing under this struct has any relationship with anything in kuberc, right?

Just adding a deprecation comment, indicating no Kubernetes components make use of this field, and adding omitzero to clean up preferences: {} noise might be nice

I'm not sure referencing kuberc here makes sense... nothing under this struct has any relationship with anything in kuberc, right?

Just adding a deprecation comment, indicating no Kubernetes components make use of this field, and adding omitzero to clean up preferences: {} noise might be nice

Updated deprecation message and added omitzero. Should be good for re-review.

liggitt · 2025-05-20T11:26:51Z

/lgtm
/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-05-20T11:26:59Z

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 3edf93325ce38f6710f8558417218ae1e6f48c86

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-05-20T11:27:06Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: liggitt, soltysh

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~cmd/kubeadm/OWNERS~~ [liggitt]
~~staging/src/k8s.io/client-go/OWNERS~~ [liggitt]
~~staging/src/k8s.io/kubectl/OWNERS~~ [liggitt,soltysh]
~~test/cmd/OWNERS~~ [liggitt,soltysh]

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

Signed-off-by: Maciej Szulik <[email protected]>

ardaguclu · 2025-05-20T11:48:22Z

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-05-20T11:48:28Z

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 55922b69c376a3765be6d5be3a64f0d2dc4b10b8

skitt · 2025-05-20T11:48:28Z

/lgtm

soltysh · 2025-05-20T12:27:42Z

Flake #131834
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce

neolit123 · 2025-05-21T09:16:03Z

cmd/kubeadm/app/util/apiclient/dryrun.go

@@ -607,7 +607,6 @@ clusters:
 contexts: null
 current-context: ""
 kind: Config
-preferences: {}


this broke one of kubeadm's e2e tests for dryrun which under the hood utilizes a fake client with reactors and fixtures. more particularly it dryruns the bootstrap token and cluster-info configmap validation.

we must also update line 614 with the expected JWS signature after the contents of the cluster-info have changed.

failing e2e test: dryrun-latest kubeadm#3202

fix is pending, looking for lgtm:

kubeadm: fix dryrun-latest e2e by updating cluster-info fixture #131880

Sorry about that, didn't catch that bit anywhere.

k8s-ci-robot assigned ardaguclu May 13, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. label May 13, 2025

k8s-ci-robot assigned liggitt May 13, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from skitt and sttts May 13, 2025 11:41

github-project-automation bot added this to API Reviews May 13, 2025

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. label May 13, 2025

soltysh mentioned this pull request May 13, 2025

Separate kubectl user preferences from cluster configs kubernetes/enhancements#3104

Open

8 tasks

liggitt reviewed May 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

liggitt moved this to In progress in API Reviews May 14, 2025

liggitt reviewed May 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

liggitt removed the status in API Reviews May 14, 2025

liggitt moved this to Changes requested in API Reviews May 14, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added area/kubectl sig/cli Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG CLI. sig/cluster-lifecycle Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Cluster Lifecycle. labels May 20, 2025

github-project-automation bot added this to SIG CLI May 20, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this to Needs Triage in SIG CLI May 20, 2025

soltysh force-pushed the deprecate_preferences branch from 0016ea9 to bb92b61 Compare May 20, 2025 11:23

k8s-ci-robot added area/test sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. labels May 20, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 20, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 20, 2025

Deprecate kubeconfig's preference field in favor of kuberc

8cf5e8d

Signed-off-by: Maciej Szulik <[email protected]>

soltysh force-pushed the deprecate_preferences branch from bb92b61 to 8cf5e8d Compare May 20, 2025 11:32

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 20, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 20, 2025

k8s-ci-robot assigned skitt May 20, 2025

k8s-ci-robot merged commit c40db09 into kubernetes:master May 20, 2025
15 checks passed

k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.34 milestone May 20, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this from Needs Triage to Done in SIG CLI May 20, 2025

soltysh deleted the deprecate_preferences branch May 20, 2025 15:12

This was referenced May 21, 2025

[Kubeadm]: Add support for ECDSA-P384 encryption algorithm #131677

Merged

failing e2e test: dryrun-latest kubernetes/kubeadm#3202

Closed

neolit123 reviewed May 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

liggitt moved this from Changes requested to API review completed, 1.34 in API Reviews May 22, 2025

Deprecate kubeconfig's preference field in favor of kuberc #131741

Deprecate kubeconfig's preference field in favor of kuberc #131741

Uh oh!

Conversation

soltysh commented May 13, 2025

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

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!

soltysh commented May 13, 2025

Uh oh!

soltysh commented May 13, 2025

Uh oh!

liggitt May 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

soltysh May 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

liggitt commented May 13, 2025

Uh oh!

liggitt May 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

soltysh May 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

liggitt commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

ardaguclu commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

skitt commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

soltysh commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

neolit123 May 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

soltysh May 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!