mirror of
https://github.com/cozystack/cozystack.git
synced 2026-11-04 02:57:27 +09:00
Aleksei Sviridkin
3cb131785c
Both podCpuLimit and podCpuRequest were rendered under `with`, which skips a zero as readily as an absent field, and their guards were keyed the same way. The generated schema behind them admits a leading minus and a zero as readily as a sane value, so rather than patch whichever edge turned up, the whole value domain is settled in one place. Presence, not truth, is the predicate everywhere either field is read. A negative value is refused: it never reaches a running Pod. A zero request on its own is allowed and reserves nothing. A zero request beside a non-zero limit is refused: KubeVirt's defaulter tests the request with IsZero, which an explicit zero satisfies exactly as an absent key does, so it overwrites the zero with the limit and the worker asks the scheduler for its whole ceiling. That is the outcome podCpuRequest exists to prevent, reached silently and reported nowhere, which is why it is refused rather than written down. A zero limit removes the ceiling rather than being the tightest one -- the kubelet turns a zero CPU limit into no CFS quota -- but it reaches a Pod only paired with a zero request. KubeVirt keeps deriving a request from the vCPU count when the VM declares none, the defaulter that would have copied the limit across does not fire because the limit is itself zero, and API server validation refuses a request above a limit that exists. Zero is a limit that exists. So a lone zero limit is refused too. Both fields document the same rules and each class has a test on both charts. A group that sets neither field renders the bytes it rendered before, so the content-hash name of the worker VM template does not move. Assisted-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Aleksei Sviridkin <3811295@gmail.com>