fix(AIP-128): clarify usage of annotations field for Declarative-friendly resources
#1298
Conversation
amirkaromashkin
changed the title
annotations fieldannotations field for Declarative-friendly interfaces
amirkaromashkin
changed the title
annotations field for Declarative-friendly interfacesannotations field for Declarative-friendly resource
amirkaromashkin
changed the title
annotations field for Declarative-friendly resourceannotations field for Declarative-friendly resources
| - Resources **must** include a | ||
| `map<string, string> annotations` field to allow clients to store small amounts | ||
| of arbitrary data: see AIP-148 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you say that this field has a similar intent as https://stripe.com/docs/api/metadata
Useful for correlation or putting extra metadata that could be used late.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are intended to have the same purpose as https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/working-with-objects/annotations/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can only agree with both comments above :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand the usage of annotations in the context of Kubernetes, but I am trying to find the usefulness from the AIP perspective outside that given Domain.
It should be a less technical-focused product and more general in the public domain (fintech, education, etc.).
Related to #1288 (comment)
The topic of transient data and/or user-controlled (external clients own the data) instead of system-controlled (internal to systems, not intended outside programmers that own the system).
The AIPs can clarify and help with the decision-making here.
|
The intent of moving annotations to AIP 148 was that all resource types should support annotations. |
Yes, and since #1183, annotations may be added to all resources. Current PR does not touch this part of the recommendation, but returns a must recommendation for Declarative-friendly resources. |
However the implementation did the exact opposite. It removed the requirement to have I think this is a regression and needs to be fixed. |
|
@bgrant0607 Can you please approve this PR and fix this issue. I needed to internally link to the |
In #1183, guide was moved from AIP-128 to AIP-148.
As a result, the information whether
Declarative-friendly interfacesmust includeannotationsfield was lost.This PR or related issue do not justify the reason of recommendation change, therefore I consider it as a bug.
This change returns the recommendation to the one before the change and puts it in both AIP-128 and AIP-148