feat: add AnnotatedEventf to events.EventRecorder

[devholic]

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

Unlike EventRecorder interface in tools/record package, EventRecorder interface in tools/events package has no AnnotatedEventf method. Due to the lack of this method, clients are unable to record annotations on events/v1.Event through the recorder interface.

This PR adds AnnotatedEventf to EventRecorder interfaceintools/eventspackage to allow clients to recordevents/v1.Event` with annotations.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

• Passing annotations and labels to Eventf API in tools/events client-go#1163

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

NONE

[k8s-ci-robot]

Please note that we're already in Test Freeze for the release-1.30 branch. This means every merged PR will be automatically fast-forwarded via the periodic ci-fast-forward job to the release branch of the upcoming v1.30.0 release.

Fast forwards are scheduled to happen every 6 hours, whereas the most recent run was: Wed Apr 3 02:18:49 UTC 2024.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @devholic!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/kubernetes 🎉. 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/kubernetes 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 @devholic. 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/test-infra repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: devholic
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign deads2k for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes 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:

• staging/src/k8s.io/client-go/OWNERS

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

[alexzielenski]

/cc @jiahuif
Do you have context for this/know someone who might?

[benluddy]

It might be a good idea to discuss how this would interact with event correlation and to consider possible performance impacts.

Instrumentation technically owns k8s.io/client-go/tools/events, maybe a good way to get traction on this would be to bring it up for discussion at one of the regular sig-instrumentation meetings?

/sig instrumentation

[liggitt]

It might be a good idea to discuss how this would interact with event correlation and to consider possible performance impacts.

Agree. I'm not sure expanding use and variance of events is a great idea… if we were going to add this, I'd want to put guards in place to make sure we didn't start using this in kubelet, etc, which makes me wonder if it's a good thing to add.

[logicalhan]

/assign @dgrisonnet
/triage accepted

[dgrisonnet]

There was a PR last year trying to add the same functionality: #115058. Copying the reservation I had here:

I also have reservations on this change and more generally toward adding labels/annotations to the Events. These objects are meant to be self explanatory, if additional information is needed, then Events are most likely not the right vector for this data.
Another aspect is that Events are designed in a way that their structure matters a lot. There are some aggregation mechanisms in the clients that will merge similar Events together and it will completely disregard whatever was added in the labels and annotations.

I am still standing by that today and would want to see a real use case before adding this functionality to the new events API.

I'd want to put guards in place to make sure we didn't start using this in kubelet, etc, which makes me wonder if it's a good thing to add.

Funnily enough this functionality was added to the core/v1 client implementation specifically for Kubelet: #64213, but if we could go back in time, I don't think we should've added it.