Add granular termination reason in container termination message

[renzodavid9]

Fixes #7223.

To report specific Steps termination reasons we need to know why its continer finished; we use the termination message to store a new "state" with this information. We evaluated changing the container reason directly, but looks like k8s doesn't allow this.

/kind feature

Changes

Submitter Checklist

As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:

• Has Docs if any changes are user facing, including updates to minimum requirements e.g. Kubernetes version bumps
• Has Tests included if any functionality added or changed
• Follows the commit message standard
• Meets the Tekton contributor standards (including functionality, content, code)
• Has a kind label. You can add one by adding a comment on this PR that contains /kind <type>. Valid types are bug, cleanup, design, documentation, feature, flake, misc, question, tep
• Release notes block below has been updated with any user facing changes (API changes, bug fixes, changes requiring upgrade notices or deprecation warnings). See some examples of good release notes.
• Release notes contains the string "action required" if the change requires additional action from users switching to the new release

Release Notes

Steps in a TaskRun will have more granular termination reasons indicating what exactly happened: Completed, Continued, Error, TimeoutExceeded, Skipped, TaskRunCancelled

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: renzodavid9 / name: Renzo Rojas (2b5e3f3)
• ✅ login: chitrangpatel / name: Chitrang Patel (2b5e3f3)

[tekton-robot]

Hi @renzodavid9. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a tektoncd 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.

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.6%	86.5%	-1.2

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	85.4%	-1.6
pkg/pod/status.go	92.9%	95.1%	2.2

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	85.4%	-1.6
pkg/pod/status.go	92.9%	95.1%	2.2

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
cmd/entrypoint/waiter.go	81.0%	85.0%	4.0
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	86.5%	-0.5
pkg/pod/status.go	92.9%	95.1%	2.2

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
cmd/entrypoint/waiter.go	81.0%	85.0%	4.0
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	86.5%	-0.5
pkg/pod/status.go	92.9%	95.1%	2.2

[JeromeJu]

/ok-to-test

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/pod/status.go	92.9%	95.1%	2.2

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
cmd/entrypoint/waiter.go	81.0%	85.0%	4.0
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	86.5%	-0.5
pkg/pod/status.go	92.9%	95.1%	2.2

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
cmd/entrypoint/waiter.go	81.0%	85.0%	4.0
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	86.5%	-0.5
pkg/pod/status.go	92.9%	95.1%	2.2

[JeromeJu]

cc @chitrangpatel for the context of #7223

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
cmd/entrypoint/waiter.go	81.0%	85.0%	4.0
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	86.5%	-0.5
pkg/pod/status.go	93.0%	95.2%	2.2

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
cmd/entrypoint/waiter.go	81.0%	85.0%	4.0
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	86.5%	-0.5
pkg/pod/status.go	93.0%	95.2%	2.2

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
cmd/entrypoint/waiter.go	81.0%	85.0%	4.0
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	86.5%	-0.5
pkg/pod/status.go	93.0%	95.2%	2.2

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
cmd/entrypoint/waiter.go	81.0%	85.0%	4.0
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	86.5%	-0.5
pkg/pod/status.go	93.0%	95.2%	2.2

[chitrangpatel]

/hold Would changing the Reason to a different string be something that is considered a breaking change according to our API compatibility policy?

#7223 (comment) shows the changes to the Reason value that has been implemented here.

Looking for feedback before we merge this. Wondering how this might affect users of this field (maybe @tektoncd/dashboard-maintainers )

cc @tektoncd/core-maintainers

[chitrangpatel]

/approve

[tekton-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: chitrangpatel

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 [chitrangpatel]

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

[JeromeJu]

/hold Would changing the Reason to a different string be something that is considered a breaking change according to our API compatibility policy?

From my understanding, the change shall not fall under the categorization of a breaking change. Given its context, it seems more of a "bug" fix rather than breaking our users given that we were previously covering the actual termination reasons.

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
cmd/entrypoint/waiter.go	81.0%	85.0%	4.0
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	86.5%	-0.5
pkg/pod/status.go	93.0%	95.2%	2.2

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
cmd/entrypoint/waiter.go	81.0%	85.0%	4.0
pkg/entrypoint/entrypointer.go	87.0%	86.5%	-0.5
pkg/pod/status.go	93.0%	95.2%	2.2

[AlanGreene]

Looking for feedback before we merge this. Wondering how this might affect users of this field (maybe @tektoncd/dashboard-maintainers )

This will affect the Dashboard, and likely any other client, which relies on the current reason values to correctly determine if a step was completed successfully. For example, changing the reason from Completed to Continued where a step uses onError: continue to ignore errors would no longer be considered a success by the Dashboard and would display an unknown or pending status.

I'm not sure I agree with the original categorisation of #7223 as a bug, it seems more like an enhancement to differentiate between these cases with more granular reason values.

[vdemeester]

Looking for feedback before we merge this. Wondering how this might affect users of this field (maybe @tektoncd/dashboard-maintainers )

This will affect the Dashboard, and likely any other client, which relies on the current reason values to correctly determine if a step was completed successfully. For example, changing the reason from Completed to Continued where a step uses onError: continue to ignore errors would no longer be considered a success by the Dashboard and would display an unknown or pending status.

I'm not sure I agree with the original categorisation of #7223 as a bug, it seems more like an enhancement to differentiate between these cases with more granular reason values.

I agree with @AlanGreene there. It's gonna affect any clients, so we have to take any change there very carefully, and ideally, in a non breaking way.

[chitrangpatel]

Looking for feedback before we merge this. Wondering how this might affect users of this field (maybe @tektoncd/dashboard-maintainers )

This will affect the Dashboard, and likely any other client, which relies on the current reason values to correctly determine if a step was completed successfully. For example, changing the reason from Completed to Continued where a step uses onError: continue to ignore errors would no longer be considered a success by the Dashboard and would display an unknown or pending status.
I'm not sure I agree with the original categorisation of #7223 as a bug, it seems more like an enhancement to differentiate between these cases with more granular reason values.

I agree with @AlanGreene there. It's gonna affect any clients, so we have to take any change there very carefully, and ideally, in a non breaking way.

Sound good! I'm glad that I put a hold on it 😅. Let's discuss this more at the API WG call on Monday (I believe there is agenda item for this already).