feat: Allow workloadKind: Deployment by Maleware · Pull Request #873 · stackabletech/opa-operator

Maleware · 2026-08-11T09:13:01Z

Description

~~HINT: Takes spike/rif as base as changes overlap. Please merge #863 first.~~

Allow opa being deployed as workload deployment.

This PR contains:

opaCluster being deployable either as workloadKind Daemonset or Deployment
podDisruptionBudgets only for workloadKind Deployment
Affinities to fan out pods when Deployment is used across all nodes if possible
Integration tests for swap Daemonset <> Deployment. Checks defaults for localTrafficPolicy is set correctly according to workloadKind
Documentation on workloadKind mechanism, PDBs and default affinities.

Definition of Done Checklist

Not all of these items are applicable to all PRs, the author should update this template to only leave the boxes in that are relevant
Please make sure all these things are done and tick the boxes

Author

Changes are OpenShift compatible
CRD changes approved
CRD documentation for all fields, following the style guide.
Helm chart can be installed and deployed operator works
Integration tests passed (for non trivial changes)
Changes need to be "offline" compatible
Links to generated (nightly) docs added
Release note snippet added

Reviewer

Code contains useful comments
Code contains useful logging statements
(Integration-)Test cases added
Documentation added or updated. Follows the style guide.
Changelog updated
Cargo.toml only contains references to git tags (not specific commits or branches)

Acceptance

Feature Tracker has been updated
Proper release label has been added
Links to generated (nightly) docs added
Release note snippet added
Add type/deprecation label & add to the deprecation schedule
Add type/experimental label & add to the experimental features tracker

Maleware · 2026-08-20T06:54:52Z

I turned it back into a draft so it cannot be merged by accident. Still ready for review.

…rs.roleConfig Replaces the EmptyRoleConfig parameter of OpaRoleType with a product-specific OpaRoleConfig, as the extension point for deploying the servers role as either a DaemonSet or a Deployment (#525). The CRD half only - no builder, PDB or orphan-cleanup changes. Both internalTrafficPolicy and podDisruptionBudget.enabled are Options with a null default, because their effective default depends on workloadKind and an OpenAPI default cannot express that. The operator derives them instead: workloadKind | internalTrafficPolicy | podDisruptionBudget.enabled DaemonSet | Local | false Deployment | Cluster | true A hard-coded schema default would let the apiserver stamp a value in before the operator sees the object, so "user chose Local" and "user said nothing" would be indistinguishable. It would also create a PodDisruptionBudget on every existing DaemonSet installation at upgrade time, protecting nothing. Decision: stackabletech/decisions#91

Maleware · 2026-09-02T16:35:54Z

--- PASS: kuttl (1322.14s)
    --- PASS: kuttl/harness (0.00s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/smoke_opa-1.16.2_openshift-false_use-tls-false (76.79s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/openldap-user-info_opa-latest-1.16.2_openshift-false (88.01s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/workload-kind_opa-latest-1.16.2_openshift-false (50.31s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/smoke_opa-1.12.3_openshift-false_use-tls-true (79.86s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/resources_opa-latest-1.16.2_openshift-false (19.21s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/smoke_opa-1.12.3_openshift-false_use-tls-false (61.69s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/logging_opa-1.16.2_openshift-false (79.47s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/logging_opa-1.12.3_openshift-false (79.65s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/aas-user-info_opa-latest-1.16.2_openshift-false (369.40s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/config-overrides_opa-latest-1.16.2_openshift-false (58.94s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/keycloak-user-info_opa-latest-1.16.2_keycloak-23.0.1_openshift-false (145.68s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/smoke_opa-1.16.2_openshift-false_use-tls-true (66.54s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/cluster-operation_opa-latest-1.16.2_openshift-false (54.29s)
        --- PASS: kuttl/harness/data-hub-resource-info_opa-latest-1.16.2_trino-latest-481_kafka-latest-4.2.1_superset-latest-6.1.0_data-hub-1.0.3_data-hub-prerequisites-0.3.0_openshift-false (1053.66s)
PASS

labrenbe

Looking good in general. My main concern is if switching workload kind really has to be disruptive.

labrenbe · 2026-09-11T07:59:37Z

+    pub struct OpaRoleConfig {
+        /// The Kubernetes workload the OPA servers run as.
+        ///
+        /// * `DaemonSet`: one Pod per node. `replicas` is ignored.


When workload is DaemonSet should we log a warning that replicas is set but ignored?

I wouldn't log it since in terms of a DaemonSet, replicas do not exist the way they would for a STS or Deployment. And since it cannot make sense I wouldn't be verbose about this.

Similar to my comment on DaemonSet + PDB this warning would mainly be a hint for the user that they created a misconfig which will be ignored by the operator so that they can fix it.

labrenbe · 2026-09-11T08:02:24Z

+        /// Whether a PodDisruptionBudget should be written out for this role.
+        ///
+        /// Defaults to `true` when `workloadKind` is `Deployment` and to `false` when it is
+        /// `DaemonSet`, since a PodDisruptionBudget doesn't make sense for a DaemonSet.


Similarly should we log a warning that a PDB is configured but ignored when workload is DaemonSet?

PDBs do not make sense in the eyes of a DaemonSet with internalTrafficPolicy: Local as any disruption of any pod would lead to impact on the platform components on the same node regardless how many pods are left on other nodes.

However, more generic, DaemonSets do not implement the scale subresource (according to docs) means we cannot use maxUnavailable. Best we might be able to do is minAvailable which is an integer. Since a DS scales with node counts, minAvailable wouldn't give us the effect we'd want from a PDB.

Means, I wouldn't warn about ignoring something which was never intended to be used in the first place.

I agree that deploying a PDB in this case would not make sense.

So exactly because this is not intended to work I would warn the user that they made a misconfiguration which will be ignored and they don't wonder why there is no PDB even though they configured one.

labrenbe · 2026-09-11T14:51:04Z

+/// note on [`get_affinity`].
+const ANTI_AFFINITY_BETWEEN_ROLE_PODS_WEIGHT: i32 = 70;
+
+/// The default affinity of `role`: prefer to spread its Pods across nodes.


I have to say I find this doc comment a bit confusing. I'm not completely sure why, maybe because it's mixing a bunch of things...

To me it makes sense. Can you elaborate on what is confusing you?

I'm not sure if the concerns belong to the TODO, the general affinity strategy or both. Also it's not clear to me what "role" is referring to in line 16? I assume it's the server role in the OPA spec?

Co-authored-by: Benedikt Labrenz <benedikt@labrenz.org>

…-operator into feat/opa-as-deployment

Maleware changed the base branch from main to spike/rif August 11, 2026 09:20

Maleware mentioned this pull request Aug 11, 2026

Support running without a DaemonSet (if desired) #525

Open

1 task

Maleware self-assigned this Aug 11, 2026

Maleware added this to Stackable Engineering Aug 11, 2026

Maleware moved this to Development: In Progress in Stackable Engineering Aug 11, 2026

Maleware marked this pull request as ready for review August 12, 2026 10:47

Maleware marked this pull request as draft August 12, 2026 10:47

Maleware changed the base branch from spike/rif to main August 14, 2026 16:15

Maleware changed the base branch from main to spike/rif August 14, 2026 16:23

Maleware marked this pull request as ready for review August 19, 2026 13:00

Maleware moved this from Development: In Progress to Development: Waiting for Review in Stackable Engineering Aug 19, 2026

Maleware marked this pull request as draft August 20, 2026 06:54

Base automatically changed from spike/rif to main September 2, 2026 14:13

Maleware added 6 commits September 2, 2026 17:43

Remove internalTrafficPolicy for now, waiting on the decision

8df4ece

refactor before adding deployment.rs as parallel mode

38d0c17

Adding deployment.rs module to handle deployments of opa

20e3081

Adding PDBs if deployment is chosen

0ace30e

Adding one test for opa deployment switch and PDBs

61b8c20

Maleware force-pushed the feat/opa-as-deployment branch from 47d0fa2 to 61b8c20 Compare September 2, 2026 16:06

Maleware marked this pull request as ready for review September 2, 2026 16:35

Maleware requested a review from a team September 2, 2026 16:36

Maleware added 4 commits September 3, 2026 12:42

Merge branch 'main' into feat/opa-as-deployment

08c2956

Merge branch 'main' into feat/opa-as-deployment

595a6d4

Merge branch 'main' into feat/opa-as-deployment

ae908ec

Merge branch 'main' into feat/opa-as-deployment

76fab10

labrenbe self-requested a review September 10, 2026 12:02

labrenbe moved this from Development: Waiting for Review to Development: In Review in Stackable Engineering Sep 10, 2026

labrenbe requested changes Sep 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Maleware and others added 5 commits September 11, 2026 19:11

Update rust/operator-binary/src/controller/build/resource/service.rs

d16fa00

Co-authored-by: Benedikt Labrenz <benedikt@labrenz.org>

Update rust/operator-binary/src/controller/build/resource/service.rs

f34677e

Co-authored-by: Benedikt Labrenz <benedikt@labrenz.org>

Apply review comment

55dd7af

Merge branch 'feat/opa-as-deployment' of github.com:stackabletech/opa…

5e7d2ef

…-operator into feat/opa-as-deployment

Merging main into feat/opa-as-deployment

da77bf7

sbernauer changed the title ~~Feature: Allow workloadKind: Deployment~~ feat: Allow workloadKind: Deployment Sep 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Conversation

Maleware commented Aug 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Definition of Done Checklist

Author

Reviewer

Acceptance

Uh oh!

Maleware commented Aug 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Maleware commented Sep 2, 2026

Uh oh!

labrenbe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

labrenbe Sep 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Maleware Sep 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

labrenbe Sep 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

labrenbe Sep 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Maleware Sep 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

labrenbe Sep 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

labrenbe Sep 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Maleware Sep 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

labrenbe Sep 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Maleware commented Aug 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

labrenbe Sep 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Maleware Sep 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading