Fix code gen process and pin dependencies for update-codegen.sh

[gauravkghildiyal]

Closes #1870
Closes #1855

/cc @spencerhance
/assign @swetharepakula

[k8s-ci-robot]

@gauravkghildiyal: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: spencerhance.

Note that only kubernetes members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

Closes #1870
Closes #1855

/cc @spencerhance
/assign @swetharepakula

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]

Hi @gauravkghildiyal. 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.

[spencerhance]

Looks great, thank you!

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: gauravkghildiyal, spencerhance
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from swetharepakula by writing /assign @swetharepakula in a comment. 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:

• OWNERS

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

[aojea]

/ok-to-test

[aojea]

can you update the build/verify.sh script to fail if the commited code doesn't match the generated code?

you have some examples here https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/hack/verify-generated-swagger-docs.sh , basically you run your script and check that nothing has changed

[aojea]

I'll update the verify, in a follow up, no worries

[gauravkghildiyal]

Thanks @aojea ! So I'll not add those changes to the same PR and see if I can send another one in the future.

@swetharepakula - Requesting review for approval.

/retest

[k8s-ci-robot]

@gauravkghildiyal: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-ingress-gce-test	103f33d	link	true	/test pull-ingress-gce-test

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[aojea]

it fails because of the errcheck linter

ingress-gce/.golangci.yaml

Line 8 in 43367be

- errcheck

I0123 19:32:44.451] Checking linters: FAIL
I0123 19:32:44.451] level=warning msg="[runner] Can't run linter errcheck: failed to validate analyzers: analyzer \"errcheck\" has nil Run"
I0123 19:32:44.451] level=error msg="Running error: 1 error occurred:\n\t* can't run linter errcheck: failed to validate analyzers: analyzer \"errcheck\" has nil Run\n\n"

latest golang release is v1.50.1, maybe we should try with that

[aojea]

We need this too #1913

[aojea]

I've found the problem, it depends on the golangci lint version

I've incorporated this commit preserving the author and the fixes in this PR #1914

PTAL

[swetharepakula]

Thanks Antonio, then I will review #1914 instead of this one.