SSABasedGenericKubernetesResourceMatcher Incorrectly Detects Mismatch for initialDelaySeconds=0 in Deployment ReadinessProbe

Bug Report

What did you do?

Define a Deployment CRUDKubernetesDependentResource in a Java Operator SDK controller with desired resource containing spec.template.spec.containers[0].readinessProbe.initialDelaySeconds=0.
Trigger reconciliation.
Observe that the controller repeatedly considers the resource as out-of-sync, even though there is no actual change needed.

The SSABasedGenericKubernetesResourceMatcher in Java Operator SDK incorrectly considers a Deployment resource as not matching the actual Kubernetes resource when spec.template.spec.containers[*].readinessProbe.initialDelaySeconds is set to 0.

Kubernetes omits fields with default values (0 for initialDelaySeconds) when storing resources, meaning the actual resource map retrieved from Kubernetes does not contain this field. However, the desired resource map includes initialDelaySeconds: 0, leading to an unnecessary update being triggered.

What did you expect to see?

If initialDelaySeconds: 0 is absent in the actual resource due to Kubernetes' defaulting behavior, the matcher should recognize this as equivalent to explicitly setting it to 0 in the desired resource.

What did you see instead? Under which circumstances?

The matcher detects a difference because the desired resource contains initialDelaySeconds: 0, while the actual resource lacks this field. This results in an unnecessary update being applied.

Environment

Kubernetes cluster type:

vanilla

$ Mention java-operator-sdk version from pom.xml file

4.9.7

$ java -version

21

$ kubectl version

v1.30.4

Possible Solution

Modify SSABasedGenericKubernetesResourceMatcher to handle cases where Kubernetes omits fields with default values, treating their absence as equivalent to explicitly setting the default value.

Additional context

This issue may affect other defaulted fields in Kubernetes objects, not just initialDelaySeconds. A general approach to handling default values might be necessary.

@kamilchociej

Thx @kamilchociej , I think the current workaround is to fill the defaults in you current resources.

Just to make sure I understand, this does not result in an infinite loop in your side, just an additional reconciliation right?

It is infinite reconciliation loop. The problem is that the desired resource contains the default (0) value while k8s does not contain the default value (0). I have no control over actual resource in io.javaoperatorsdk.operator.processing.dependent.kubernetes.SSABasedGenericKubernetesResourceMatcher.

Default value is removed from resource definition on k8s side while the property remains as managed field in controller managed fields entry.

Whole process looks like:

Desired Deployment contains containing spec.template.spec.containers[0].readinessProbe.initialDelaySeconds=0.
Controller applies desired state.
K8s applies the change but returns Deployment without spec.template.spec.containers[0].readinessProbe.initialDelaySeconds
Controller is notified about the Update
Desired Deployment contains spec.template.spec.containers[0].readinessProbe.initialDelaySeconds=0
Actual Deployment does not contain spec.template.spec.containers[0].readinessProbe.initialDelaySeconds
SSABasedGenericKubernetesResourceMatcher returns false
Deployment with spec.template.spec.containers[0].readinessProbe.initialDelaySeconds=0 is applied
All previous steps staring from 4th happen again.

It looks like 0 for Integer is threaten as null by k8s but difference between setting 0 and null is that if you set 0 then field is marked as managed by operator controller.

can you try to set previousAnnotationForDependentResourcesEventFiltering to false, if it helps with infinite loop?

Where can I set this?

Following logic applied on each desired Probe resolves the issue:

  private void sanitizeProbe(Probe probe) {
    if (probe != null) {
      if (Objects.equals(0, probe.getInitialDelaySeconds())) {
        probe.setInitialDelaySeconds(null);
      }
      if (Objects.equals(0, probe.getPeriodSeconds())) {
        probe.setPeriodSeconds(10);
      }
      if (Objects.equals(0, probe.getTimeoutSeconds())) {
        probe.setTimeoutSeconds(1);
      }
      if (Objects.equals(0, probe.getSuccessThreshold())) {
        probe.setSuccessThreshold(1);
      }
      if (Objects.equals(0, probe.getFailureThreshold())) {
        probe.setFailureThreshold(3);
      }
      if (Objects.equals(0L, probe.getTerminationGracePeriodSeconds())) {
        probe.setTerminationGracePeriodSeconds(null);
      }
    }
  }

This is ugly workaround but at least it works for Probes.

can you try to set previousAnnotationForDependentResourcesEventFiltering to false, if it helps with infinite loop?

java-operator-sdk/operator-framework-core/src/main/java/io/javaoperatorsdk/operator/api/config/ConfigurationService.java

Line 447 in e48a44c

default boolean previousAnnotationForDependentResourcesEventFiltering() {

within ConfigurationService, similar to this:

java-operator-sdk/sample-operators/webpage/src/main/java/io/javaoperatorsdk/operator/sample/WebPageOperator.java

Line 28 in e48a44c

    
           Operator operator = new Operator(o -> o.withStopOnInformerErrorDuringStartup(false));

That should fix the infinite loop.

closing this as duplicate: #2553

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

SSABasedGenericKubernetesResourceMatcher Incorrectly Detects Mismatch for initialDelaySeconds=0 in Deployment ReadinessProbe #2742

Bug Report

What did you do?

What did you expect to see?

What did you see instead? Under which circumstances?

Environment

Possible Solution

Additional context

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

SSABasedGenericKubernetesResourceMatcher Incorrectly Detects Mismatch for initialDelaySeconds=0 in Deployment ReadinessProbe #2742

Description

Bug Report

What did you do?

What did you expect to see?

What did you see instead? Under which circumstances?

Environment

Possible Solution

Additional context

Activity

csviri commented on Mar 27, 2025

csviri commented on Mar 27, 2025

kamilchociej commented on Mar 27, 2025

kamilchociej commented on Mar 27, 2025

kamilchociej commented on Mar 27, 2025

kamilchociej commented on Mar 27, 2025

csviri commented on Mar 27, 2025

kamilchociej commented on Mar 27, 2025

kamilchociej commented on Mar 27, 2025

csviri commented on Mar 27, 2025

csviri commented on Mar 27, 2025

csviri commented on Mar 31, 2025

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions