Fix image updater overreach

[mgazza]

Stop image updater erroring when encountering fields named image but are not what it expects

closes #5257

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: mgazza / name: Mark Gascoyne (5d5dc43)

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mgazza
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign natasha41575 for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @mgazza!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/kustomize 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/kustomize has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @mgazza. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

[Aisuko]

/assign

[Aisuko]

/ok-to-test

[k8s-ci-robot]

@Aisuko: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

In response to this:

/ok-to-test

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.

[Aisuko]

/test

[k8s-ci-robot]

@Aisuko: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

In response to this:

/test

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.

[annasong20]

@mgazza Thanks for initiating a fix! The problem is I can see users having the opposite problem as #5257. They expect the transformation to have applied when Kustomize does not throw an error, but are surprised to learn that Kustomize failed silently. I think the correct course of action is to announce that images will no longer operate on just any field named containers or initContainers with the legacy filter deprecation. Feel free to contribute to #5325!

Will leave this PR open for discussion, but if you agree, please close.

[mgazza]

I agree, however, I think deprecation may take some time to reach my use case. Can we instead of erroring out in the meantime log a warning?

[natasha41575]

@mgazza Changing the error to a warning will be a breaking change and will still have all the unintended consequences that @annasong20 described in #5258 (comment).

I empathize with your use case, but it seems like an unfortunate (and seemingly uncommon) edge case, and I don't think that there is a good reason here to break others' workflows and cause confusion. We briefly considered maybe making this a configurable option, but if we do that we would have to add, review, document, and then eventually also deprecate the new option. This would be just as much work if not more work than just completing #5325.

We already have a path forward here (#5325), and if you'd like that to move forward you can contribute to it directly. It is not a super big issue and shouldn't be more than 1-2 weeks of dedicated work, so I feel that it doesn't make sense to try to find quick fixes to work around it. Yes, it will take time to see it through to the end, but I would much rather have us spend a month fixing the issue the right way, than introduce a UX-impacting quick fix that has unintended consequences that take us many months to undo.