Kubernetes 1.18.5 dependency upgrade (plus other upgrades)

[jimmidyson]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Upgraded dependencies for Kubernetes 1.18.5 as well as various other small upgrades. Needed to keep up to date with Kubernetes changes and improvements, especially for those projects using kubefed as a library.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):

Special notes for your reviewer:

[hectorj2f]

/lgtm

[RainbowMango]

/verify-owners

[mrbobbytables]

The repo-infra commit will need to be updated to use the version without nico in the owners file. 👍

[RainbowMango]

Thanks Bob, I'm just curious, seems clarketm already the member of org, why robot still saying not.

[mrbobbytables]

They have to accept the org membership request first before it will return valid

[RainbowMango]

Oh, right, that makes sense.

[RainbowMango]

Another question comes to my mind, why we need to check OWNER files even in a vendor path?

In this case, we vendors a Kubernetes repo, that's ok we add the guys to Kubernetes org. What if we vendors another repo which not belongs to Kubernetes but have an OWNER file in it?

@mrbobbytables How do you think? Is there anything I didn't know?

[nikhita]

What if we vendors another repo which not belongs to Kubernetes but have an OWNER file in it?

@RainbowMango It should ignore vendor directories and that was the behavior before. Looks like a bug that it doesn't ignore it anymore, I'll check if there were some things changed recently that could affect this behavior. For reference:

https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/blob/bb65d07c9ece6311ea82e58925b59ebd24f28d22/prow/config/config.go#L394

[nikhita]

As a side note, should the repo-infra directory be under the path vendor/k8s.io/repo-infra instead of vendor/repo-infra?

[RainbowMango]

As a side note, should the repo-infra directory be under the path vendor/k8s.io/repo-infra instead of vendor/repo-infra?

Awesome! Nikhita. I doubt if the vendor is the right choice, maybe a third-part path?

[jimmidyson]

@RainbowMango I agree that vendor is probably not the right choice, but vendor used to be ignored for OWNERS check as @nikhita said above, hence placing it in there.

[nikhita]

Fwiw I've now manually removed the do-not-merge/invalid-owners-file label since it appears to be a bug in prow. Will investigate but don't want it to be a blocker for y'all :)

[RainbowMango]

@jimmidyson Thanks for your explanation, I didn't know the background before.

Will investigate but don't want it to be a blocker for y'all

@nikhita I guess Prow will check this for every PR. That means prow will set the do-not-merge/invalid-owners-file label before it gets fixed, right?
No worries, I just curious about the mechanisms of Prow.

[nikhita]

That means prow will set the do-not-merge/invalid-owners-file label before it gets fixed, right?

Yes, but it's problematic only for the PRs that would touch vendor/. Works as intended in other cases. 👍

[jimmidyson]

From @nikhita's hint (thank you!), I've moved repo-infra from vendor/repo-infra (which was incorrect to begin with...) to vendor/k8s.io/repo-infra which should match with the ignore list in invalid owners check.

[irfanurrehman]

Thanks for doing this @jimmidyson
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: irfanurrehman, jimmidyson

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [irfanurrehman,jimmidyson]

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

[irfanurrehman]

/lgtm