add device data in resourceclaim

[guptaNswati]

Addressing #101 to add device attributes to demonstrate how to do resourceclaim status update.

Test run

    devices:
    - conditions:
      - lastTransitionTime: "2025-11-13T22:22:56Z"
        message: ""
        reason: GPUDeviceReady
        status: "True"
        type: Ready
      data:
        driverVersion:
          version: 1.0.0
        uuid:
          string: gpu-18db0e85-99e9-c746-8531-ffeb86328b39
      device: gpu-0

  devices:
    - conditions:
      - lastTransitionTime: "2025-11-13T22:22:56Z"
        message: ""
        reason: GPUDeviceReady
        status: "True"
        type: Ready
      data:
        driverVersion:
          version: 1.0.0
        uuid:
          string: gpu-93d37703-997c-c46f-a531-755e3e0dc2ac
      device: gpu-1

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @guptaNswati!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/dra-example-driver 🎉. 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-sigs/dra-example-driver 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. 😃

[guptaNswati]

cc @nojnhuh for review.

[nojnhuh]

FYI @guptaNswati I was hoping to get this PR merged before #129 to keep you from having to deal with those changes here. There are other changes in the works that are based on that PR though, so I may elect to merge that one first. If #129 merges first, I'm happy to help resolve conflicts with your PR here!

[guptaNswati]

FYI @guptaNswati I was hoping to get this PR merged before #129 to keep you from having to deal with those changes here. There are other changes in the works that are based on that PR though, so I may elect to merge that one first. If #129 merges first, I'm happy to help resolve conflicts with your PR here!

Oh i see. thank you for the headsup. i will see if i can update this tomorrow or else you can go ahead and merge #129. Main blocker is the e2e, right? we can't merge this without the tests?

[nojnhuh]

@guptaNswati Yes, I would like to include something in the tests for this. #128 (comment) is the other comment I would like to resolve before merging.

[nojnhuh]

@guptaNswati Have you pushed your recent changes? The most recent commit I see here is from when the PR was first opened.

[guptaNswati]

@guptaNswati Have you pushed your recent changes? The most recent commit I see here is from when the PR was first opened.

sorry pushing them rn.

[guptaNswati]

this is the quick test with updated changes. fixing e2e test

I1205 21:38:59.352921       1 state.go:229] Adding device attribute to claim gpu-test1/pod0-gpu-zfncn
  devices:
  - conditions:
    - lastTransitionTime: "2025-12-05T21:38:59Z"
      message: GPU Device Allocated for this request
      reason: GPUDeviceAllocated
      status: "True"
      type: Allocated
    data:
      driverVersion:
        version: 1.0.0
      model:
        string: LATEST-GPU-MODEL
      uuid:
        string: gpu-657bd2e7-f5c2-a7f2-fbaa-0d1cdc32f81b

[guptaNswati]

e2e test

 ./test/e2e/e2e.sh 
./test/e2e/e2e.sh: line 1: !/usr/bin/env: No such file or directory
dra-example-driver-cluster
kind-dra-1
NAME                                       STATUS   ROLES           AGE    VERSION
dra-example-driver-cluster-control-plane   Ready    control-plane   104s   v1.34.0
dra-example-driver-cluster-worker          Ready    <none>          89s    v1.34.0
node/dra-example-driver-cluster-worker condition met
Waiting for webhook to be available
resourceclaim.resource.k8s.io/webhook-test created (server dry run)
Webhook is available
namespace/gpu-test1 created
resourceclaimtemplate.resource.k8s.io/single-gpu created
pod/pod0 created
pod/pod1 created
namespace/gpu-test2 created
resourceclaimtemplate.resource.k8s.io/multiple-gpus created
pod/pod0 created
namespace/gpu-test3 created
resourceclaimtemplate.resource.k8s.io/single-gpu created
pod/pod0 created
namespace/gpu-test4 created
resourceclaim.resource.k8s.io/single-gpu created
pod/pod0 created
pod/pod1 created
namespace/gpu-test5 created
resourceclaimtemplate.resource.k8s.io/multiple-gpus created
pod/pod0 created
namespace/gpu-test6 created
resourceclaimtemplate.resource.k8s.io/single-gpu created
pod/pod0 created
pod/pod0 condition met
pod/pod1 condition met
=== Verifying ResourceClaim device data in namespace gpu-test1 ===
Found ResourceClaim gpu-test1/pod0-gpu-pqv5n, checking status.devices[0].data ...
OK: ResourceClaim gpu-test1/pod0-gpu-pqv5n has device data (uuid=gpu-e7b42cb1-4fd8-91b2-bc77-352a0c1f5747, driverVersion=1.0.0)
Pod gpu-test1/pod0, container ctr0 claimed gpu-4
Pod gpu-test1/pod1, container ctr0 claimed gpu-5
pod/pod0 condition met
Pod gpu-test2/pod0, container ctr0 claimed gpu-0
Pod gpu-test2/pod0, container ctr0 claimed gpu-6
pod/pod0 condition met
Pod gpu-test3/pod0, container ctr0 claimed gpu-1
Pod gpu-test3/pod0, container ctr1 claimed gpu-1
pod/pod0 condition met
pod/pod1 condition met
Pod gpu-test4/pod0, container ctr0 claimed gpu-2
Pod gpu-test4/pod1, container ctr0 claimed gpu-2
pod/pod0 condition met
Pod gpu-test5/pod0, container ts-ctr0 claimed gpu-3
Pod gpu-test5/pod0, container ts-ctr1 claimed gpu-3
Pod gpu-test5/pod0, container sp-ctr0 claimed gpu-7
Pod gpu-test5/pod0, container sp-ctr1 claimed gpu-7
pod/pod0 condition met
Pod gpu-test6/pod0, container init0 claimed gpu-8
Pod gpu-test6/pod0, container ctr0 claimed gpu-8
namespace "gpu-test1" deleted
resourceclaimtemplate.resource.k8s.io "single-gpu" deleted
pod "pod0" deleted
pod "pod1" deleted
namespace "gpu-test2" deleted
resourceclaimtemplate.resource.k8s.io "multiple-gpus" deleted
pod "pod0" deleted
namespace "gpu-test3" deleted
resourceclaimtemplate.resource.k8s.io "single-gpu" deleted
pod "pod0" deleted
namespace "gpu-test4" deleted
resourceclaim.resource.k8s.io "single-gpu" deleted
pod "pod0" deleted
pod "pod1" deleted
namespace "gpu-test5" deleted
resourceclaimtemplate.resource.k8s.io "multiple-gpus" deleted
pod "pod0" deleted
namespace "gpu-test6" deleted
resourceclaimtemplate.resource.k8s.io "single-gpu" deleted
pod "pod0" deleted
test ran successfully

[nojnhuh]

I don't think we need to address this now, but we should think about how to handle errors here besides only logging them. Retries will help in some cases (HTTP 409), but we should prevent blocking subsequent NodePrepareResources calls on retries that may never succeed and I'm not sure what an appropriate amount of time would be to spend on that. I wonder if a workqueue running async would be the most appropriate way to handle status updates?

@guptaNswati Could you please open an issue to track improvements to error handling here?

[guptaNswati]

done #133

[alaypatel07]

You also need this to de-couple the allocation times from apiserver update latency. May be as a hacky first implementation you can do this in a goroutine?

I guess the main question to ask is, is this update required for the driver to declare allocation as complete or is the information in this update auxiliary to allocation?

[guptaNswati]

sorry was out for holidays. looking at it now.

[guptaNswati]

Quick test after the rebase:

$ kubectl get resourceclaim pod1-gpu-ksml7 -n gpu-test1 -o yaml
  devices:
  - conditions: null
    data:
      driverVersion:
        version: 1.0.0
      model:
        string: LATEST-GPU-MODEL
      uuid:
        string: gpu-93d37703-997c-c46f-a531-755e3e0dc2ac
    device: gpu-1
    driver: gpu.example.com

[guptaNswati]

@nojnhuh i made the suggested changes. Its ready to review again.

• rebased on main
• added cli flag: add device data in resourceclaim #128 (comment)
• updated to converting wrapper and update from SSA: add device data in resourceclaim #128 (comment)

[pohly]

/assign @nojnhuh

[nojnhuh]

Could we call this something like gpu-device-status instead to avoid confusing with #125?

[nojnhuh]

Let's move this logic into the gpu profile so we can implement this differently for different kinds of devices. See #129 for more about the "profile" concept.

Ideally we shouldn't have to implement this for every kind of device.

[guptaNswati]

okay. looking to it. need sometime to understand the refractor. will be back at it.

[nojnhuh]

Let's keep NewDeviceState where we pull everything out of the Config that we need vs. storing the whole Config on the DeviceState. Config contains user-facing config like command line flags, so let's not plumb that too far down.

[guptaNswati]

Ack. I will work on it next week.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: guptaNswati
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from nojnhuh. 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:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment