Proposal: Tekton objects should be self descriptive using annotations instead of insider info (container name prefix...)

[joseblas]

Expected Behavior

Tekton Step names shouldn't have any constrains but length.

Actual Behavior

Currently Tekton sidecars container names is based on steps names, and this makes Tekton step names not flexible.

Proposal

When a Pod is created should have an annotation with all the Tekton containers within. Something like Istio does:
sidecar.istio.io/status: '{"version":"299b0fe3441985f893a8b9fcca72a53989f22ef3d7b53148499683a078e54915","initContainers":["istio-init"],"containers":["istio-proxy"],"volumes":["istio-envoy","istio-certs"],"imagePullSecrets":null}'

[vdemeester]

This is related to that change and #936. We should try to make sure our object are as self descriptive as they can be and use annotation more instead of having to rely on insider information (aka the containername prefix, …)

[vtereso]

In terms of processing, it requires less memory to filter the steps out of the pod using a prefix rather than having to compare against all annotations in a map (although either is fine). However, one question is why all containers within the task pod are not steps? A task in this manner would be most descriptive imo. EDIT: I suppose this is not possible because sidecars?

[joseblas]

For instance, Istio adds sidecars containers in pods; when Tekton containers are finished the pod is finished unless a sidecar container is still running. That container has to be killed. Up to now, the code was based on prefix on step names. The goal of this thread is to provide an alternative design.

[joseblas]

Hi @vdemeester @bobcatfish,
this was open last week and no feedback since. I guess this proposal could be used in our implementation and close this issue, or discuss it in our weekly meeting

[joseblas]

implemented in #936

[bobcatfish]

Sorry for the lack of discussion in the issue @joseblas ! I had a pretty big backlog of issues to get through and didn't get a chance to get back to this one :(

In our working group meeting last week we discussed #1027 which seems like it might accomplish what you are looking for by making it so that container names are included in statuses as well as step names? (It isn't using annotations like you described here tho)

Please re-open this issue if #1027 doesn't address what you wanted - I took a look at #936 and I'm not 100% sure it addresses this issue, but I might be missing something!