[GEP-33] Add Capability support by aniruddha2000 · Pull Request #206 · stackitcloud/gardener-extension-provider-stackit

aniruddha2000 · 2026-07-09T15:42:55Z

How to categorize this PR?

/kind api-change
/kind enhancement

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR is part of GEP-33 Machine Image Capabilities

It adopts the introduced Cloud Profile Capabilities from Gardener. It offers a mechanism to define a relationships between MachineTypes and MachineImages to ensure only compatible amis are selected for a given MachineType. An example for a Capability is the CPU architecture that is added as the first mandatory Capability. The existing architecture field is planned to be removed eventually.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Breaking changes:

ske-prow · 2026-07-09T15:42:58Z

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

ske-prow · 2026-07-09T15:43:00Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

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

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

Details

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

nschad · 2026-07-30T09:18:13Z

/hold

risk of regression. needs heavy-testing

nschad · 2026-08-03T13:18:00Z

 			// specifying the volume type requires a custom volume size to be specified too.
 			if pool.Volume != nil && pool.Volume.Type != nil {
 				machineClassSpec["rootDiskType"] = *pool.Volume.Type
+			} else if machineTypeFromCloudProfile.Storage != nil &&


Dear Reviewers,

I've added this also from provider-openstack. This does not have anything to-do with the machine capabilities

timebertt

In general, this PR is very hard to review.
We had a look together with @breuerfelix @viragvoros @nschad, but haven't made it through all of it. We had a look at the API types, helpers and some parts of the validation.

timebertt · 2026-08-04T07:42:11Z

 	Image string `json:"image,omitempty"`
 	// Regions is an optional mapping to the correct Image ID for the machine image in the supported regions.
 	Regions []RegionIDMapping `json:"regions,omitempty"`
+	// CapabilityFlavors is grouping of region AMIs by capabilities.


Add the // +optional tag for new fields

timebertt · 2026-08-04T07:46:41Z

+	// Regions is a mapping to the correct Image ID for the machine image in the supported regions.
+	Regions []RegionIDMapping `json:"regions,omitempty"`
+	// Image is the name of the image.
+	Image string `json:"image,omitempty"`


Is this needed? I don't see it in the example you provided

We can drop it if we don't want to support imageNames at all.

timebertt · 2026-08-04T07:48:04Z

+	// Image is the name of the image.
+	Image string `json:"image,omitempty"`
+	// Capabilities that are supported by the Image ID in this set.
+	Capabilities gardencorev1beta1.Capabilities `json:"capabilities,omitempty"`


Can we add a deprecation note to the architecture-related fields?

It's not yet deprecated. But the idea is eventually to deprecate it,
See: https://github.com/gardener/enhancements/tree/main/geps/0033-machine-image-capabilities#migration-strategy

timebertt · 2026-08-04T07:49:11Z

+	// Image is the name of the image.
+	Image string `json:"image,omitempty"`
+	// Capabilities that are supported by the Image ID in this set.
+	Capabilities gardencorev1beta1.Capabilities `json:"capabilities,omitempty"`


I assume that specifying both an region[].architecture field and the new capabilities is not supported, right?

timebertt · 2026-08-04T07:49:56Z

 	// +optional
 	Architecture *string `json:"architecture,omitempty"`
+	// Capabilities of the machine image.
+	Capabilities gardencorev1beta1.Capabilities `json:"capabilities,omitempty"`


Add // +optional tag

timebertt · 2026-08-04T07:56:14Z


 // ValidateCloudProfileConfig validates a CloudProfileConfig object.
-func ValidateCloudProfileConfig(cloudProfile *stackitv1alpha1.CloudProfileConfig, machineImages []core.MachineImage, fldPath *field.Path) field.ErrorList {
+func ValidateCloudProfileConfig(cloudProfile *stackitv1alpha1.CloudProfileConfig, machineImages []core.MachineImage, capabilityDefinitions []gardencorev1beta1.CapabilityDefinition, fldPath *field.Path) field.ErrorList {


This mix between core (internal API version) and corev1beta1 (external API version) is strange. Can we use internal or external for both params?

We can but so far we have used only the internal API types for the webhook.

timebertt · 2026-08-04T08:11:54Z

 	return allErrs
 }

+func validateMachineImageCapabilities(machineImage core.MachineImage, version gardencorev1beta1.MachineImageVersion, providerImageVersion stackitv1alpha1.MachineImageVersion, capabilityDefinitions []gardencorev1beta1.CapabilityDefinition) field.ErrorList {


Why is the entire validation for NamespacedCloudProfiles implemented in this package, while validation for CloudProfiles is implemented in the dedicated validation package?
Can we consolidate this? (Could also be in a separate PR)

…ation

…in the shootSpec

…nd fix docstring

ske-prow Bot added do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. kind/api-change API change with impact on API users kind/enhancement Enhancement, improvement, extension labels Jul 9, 2026

ske-prow Bot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jul 9, 2026

aniruddha2000 force-pushed the add-capability branch from 57d62ad to 3646083 Compare July 13, 2026 09:17

ske-prow Bot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 13, 2026

ske-prow Bot added size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 22, 2026

aniruddha2000 marked this pull request as ready for review July 23, 2026 07:14

ske-prow Bot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. labels Jul 23, 2026

nschad force-pushed the add-capability branch from ad28100 to 4f63946 Compare July 24, 2026 12:21

ske-prow Bot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 24, 2026

ske-prow Bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jul 30, 2026

nschad reviewed Aug 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

timebertt reviewed Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

nschad force-pushed the add-capability branch from 3808189 to 0ed5347 Compare August 4, 2026 10:38

nschad added 2 commits August 4, 2026 12:48

feat: add machineCapabilities api types

8b91396

add admission webhooks for NamespacedCloudprofile

0d69b30

nschad force-pushed the add-capability branch from 6c29563 to 6065917 Compare August 4, 2026 10:48

nschad added 5 commits August 4, 2026 12:53

cloudprofile: extend admission webhook with machineCapabilities valid…

a469cc5

…ation

worker: default storageClass from CloudProfile if not explicitly set …

eed4750

…in the shootSpec

worker: Implement GEP-33 machineCapabilities

a18eb69

pr review: remove unused decoder from NamespaceCloudprofile Validator

eee4e1a

pr review: rename validateMachineImagesOnlyInNamespacedCloudProfile a…

b46da81

…nd fix docstring

nschad force-pushed the add-capability branch from 6065917 to b46da81 Compare August 4, 2026 10:54

Uh oh!

Conversation

aniruddha2000 commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

ske-prow Bot commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

ske-prow Bot commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

nschad commented Jul 30, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

timebertt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants