Feature: Allow configuration of custom enum markers for `maxlength` linter

[everettraven]

In OpenShift, we have some custom markers that set enum values for a field and this results in the maxlength linter stating that a field/type alias should have a maximum length when using this custom marker instead of the standard kubebuilder:validation:Enum marker.

While this particular case is OpenShift-specific, I think it is reasonable to make a generic way to extend this detection logic as there may be other vendors and/or projects that use their own custom markers for CRD generation.

[everettraven]

@JoelSpeed What are your thoughts here?

[JoelSpeed]

In this particular case, we actually can then have multiple declarations of the MaxLength which are applied in different scenarios. Does this linter need to be able to determine the difference between the multiple values, or does it just check for the presence of a single value?

I think in most of the rules we have, adding the ability to customise the set of markers that the rule is looking for probably makes sense

[everettraven]

Circling back around to this.

In this particular case, we actually can then have multiple declarations of the MaxLength which are applied in different scenarios. Does this linter need to be able to determine the difference between the multiple values, or does it just check for the presence of a single value?

I suspect you are referring to the fact that we may have multiple feature-gated validations that enforce different MaxLength values depending on the feature-gate that is active?
AFAIK, the maxlength linter just checks to see if there should be a MaxLength provided so I don't think it quite captures the nuance of the situation here.

I'll have to do a bit more thinking on this, but I'm realizing that the feature-gate aspect of this throws some of the expectations we have off kilter a bit. To properly handle the feature-gate aware validations, we would need to be able to iterate through the different validation "sets" for each feature-gate to ensure they make sense to the linter. This is something that would likely need to be a more nuanced translation layer that may be better suited to be handled on a case-by-case basis rather than trying to shoehorn something generic here.

[JoelSpeed]

I think in this one, I'm thinking along the lines of, today, where it currently just checks, "is there a XYZ marker", then that's fine and works. But we know from our own experience, that there's a possibility that we need "is there an XYZ marker with a keyed value". So, I'm trying to work out, does this linter care about knowing the value of the maximum? If it does, then when we allow custom markers, we would also need to specify if we expect the value to be under a certain key, or, whether we expect it to just be present, and presence is sufficient

[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
/help

[k8s-ci-robot]

@JoelSpeed:
This request has been marked as needing help from a contributor.

Guidelines

Please ensure that the issue body includes answers to the following questions:

• Why are we solving this issue?
• To address this issue, are there any code changes? If there are code changes, what needs to be done in the code and what places can the assignee treat as reference points?
• How can the assignee reach out to you for help?

For more details on the requirements of such an issue, please see here and ensure that they are met.

If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed
by commenting with the /remove-help command.

In response to this:

/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle frozen
/help

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-sigs/prow repository.