Skip to content

feat: add support for load balancer, listener, and pool tags annotations#3058

Open
A10ss wants to merge 3 commits intokubernetes:masterfrom
A10ss:support-add-tags-to-lb
Open

feat: add support for load balancer, listener, and pool tags annotations#3058
A10ss wants to merge 3 commits intokubernetes:masterfrom
A10ss:support-add-tags-to-lb

Conversation

@A10ss
Copy link

@A10ss A10ss commented Jan 23, 2026

What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds support for the add tags to load balancer, listener, and pool via the service annotations in cloud-provider-openstack (OCCM).

Which issue this PR fixes(if applicable):
fixes #3032 #2327

Special notes for reviewers:
You can add annotations to the service like:

loadbalancer.openstack.org/listener-tags: '["tags-test"]'
loadbalancer.openstack.org/load-balancer-tags: '["tags-test"]'
loadbalancer.openstack.org/pool-tags: '["tags-test"]'

Then check if the tags have been added to the service's load blancer(the service's type should be load balancer)

Release note:

[openstack-cloud-controller-manager] Support adding tags to load balancers, listeners, and pools via Service annotations.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. label Jan 23, 2026
@linux-foundation-easycla
Copy link

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Jan 23, 2026 •
edited
Loading

CLA Signed

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 23, 2026

[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 anguslees 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:

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
Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 23, 2026

Welcome @A10ss!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/cloud-provider-openstack 🎉. 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/cloud-provider-openstack 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 k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Jan 23, 2026
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 23, 2026

Hi @A10ss. 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.

Details

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jan 23, 2026
@A10ss A10ss force-pushed the support-add-tags-to-lb branch from b9d7293 to 6da530f Compare January 23, 2026 07:37
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. and removed cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jan 23, 2026
@kayrus
Copy link
Contributor

kayrus commented Jan 23, 2026

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jan 23, 2026
kayrus
kayrus reviewed Jan 23, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@kayrus kayrus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR. See my initial comments.

pkg/openstack/loadbalancer.go Outdated
var desiredTags []string
if len(svcConf.lbTags) == 0 {
klog.V(4).Infof("No load balancer tags found from service annotation key: %s", ServiceAnnotationLoadBalancerTags)
} else if err := json.Unmarshal([]byte(svcConf.lbTags), &desiredTags); err != nil {
Copy link
Contributor

@kayrus kayrus Jan 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't like an idea to use json inside the annotation. Can you make it simpler? See an example

Copy link
Author

@A10ss A10ss Jan 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep, the json format could support more complex tags, and for LB tags we may don't need very complex tags, so I think your point is right, I'll change it.

pkg/openstack/loadbalancer.go Outdated
Comment on lines 976 to 977
} else {
if svcConf.supportLBTags {
Copy link
Contributor

@kayrus kayrus Jan 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This logic feels a bit hard to follow with the nested if statements. Would it be possible to simplify or refactor it to improve readability? The same applies to other parts of new code.

Copy link
Author

@A10ss A10ss Jan 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agree with that, I'd like to do.

@A10ss
Copy link
Author

A10ss commented Jan 27, 2026

@kayrus please help review this PR again, thanks!

@A10ss A10ss requested a review from kayrus January 27, 2026 05:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@anguslees anguslees Awaiting requested review from anguslees

@kayrus kayrus Awaiting requested review from kayrus

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Hope OCCM could support add tags to LB, listeners, pools

3 participants

@A10ss @k8s-ci-robot @kayrus