New Linter: nameformats (CRD only)

[JoelSpeed]

• For CRD - not default
• Common fields like name and namespace should be validated with CEL to match DNS1123 subdomain and label respectively

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.

This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Close this issue with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[JoelSpeed]

/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle frozen

[krishagarwal278]

/assign @krishagarwal278

[sbueringer]

How do we avoid false positives? Not every name/namespace field is a Kubernetes resource name/namespace?

[krishagarwal278]

/unassign @krishagarwal278

[JoelSpeed]

@sbueringer I was talking to Krish in a DM yesterday, I'm thinking this is likely not going to be a useful rule as the false positives will be too frequent.

The only thing I am still keen to lint is that the format CEL validations typically require you to prefix with ! so that it's !format.<blah>.hasValue(), which trips people up often

But just looking for name and namespace fields is not reliable here

[everettraven]

I also spoke with @JoelSpeed and @krishagarwal278 offline and suggested that we have a linter that just checks to ensure there is some kind formatting validations on name and namespace fields.

Speaking from the OpenShift API reviewer perspective, there has been very few times where a name type field comes around, that is not bound to Kube name conventions, that does not have some kind of reasonable formatting or required patterns that can be added to the set of validations for the field.

If there is truly no additional validation that makes sense for a particular field, either:

• turn off the lint check
• add an exclusion for that particular field