KEP-5489: Enable defining a default StorageClass for each specific volume access mode

[savirg]

• One-line PR description: Enable defining a default StorageClass for each specific volume access mode

• Issue link: Enable defining a default StorageClass for each specific volume access mode #5489

• Other comments:

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @savirg!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/enhancements 🎉. 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/enhancements 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 @savirg. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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-sigs/prow repository.

[msau42]

/ok-to-test

[msau42]

/assign

[msau42]

Have the beta and GA sections been filled out?

[savirg]

Do I need to fill them now or after the alpha release?

[msau42]

Fill these out

[savirg]

Done

[msau42]

Here I would mention the other alternatives discussed in this issue: kubernetes/kubernetes#89911

The main challenges with the webhook or mutating admission policy approaches is the ordering with the builtin defaultstorageclass admission controller. We would have to migrate the existing admission controller to solve the ordering problems, and that still wouldn't address the logic in the PV controller.

[savirg]

Done

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: savirg
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from msau42. For more information see the 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:

• keps/sig-storage/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]

@savirg: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-enhancements-test	938eecc	link	true	/test pull-enhancements-test
pull-enhancements-verify	938eecc	link	true	/test pull-enhancements-verify

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.