:warning: Add AnnotatedEventRecorderProvider interface by adri1197 · Pull Request #3509 · kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime

adri1197 · 2026-04-27T16:12:34Z

Adds support for creating event recorders that can attach custom annotations to events,
mirroring the AnnotatedEventf capability recently added to client-go/tools/events
(see kubernetes/kubernetes#138103).

This introduces a new AnnotatedEventRecorderProvider interface in pkg/recorder rather
than adding a method to the existing Provider interface, so this is a backwards-compatible
change. Consumers can type-assert the manager/cluster to access the new functionality:

if p, ok := mgr.(recorder.AnnotatedEventRecorderProvider); ok {
    rec := p.GetAnnotatedEventRecorder("my-controller")
    rec.AnnotatedEventf(obj, nil, map[string]string{"key": "value"}, corev1.EventTypeNormal, "Reason", "Action", "Note")
}

Changes:

Added AnnotatedEventRecorderProvider interface in pkg/recorder
Implemented GetAnnotatedEventRecorder on the internal recorder Provider
Implemented AnnotatedEventf on lazyRecorder
Added GetAnnotatedEventRecorder on cluster and controllerManager (concrete types only, no interface changes)
Added unit and integration tests

k8s-ci-robot · 2026-04-27T16:12:44Z

Welcome @adri1197!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

k8s-ci-robot · 2026-04-27T16:12:45Z

Hi @adri1197. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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.

Details

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-sigs/prow repository.

matheuscscp

LGTM 🙌

k8s-ci-robot · 2026-05-20T13:15:33Z

@matheuscscp: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators

Details

In response to this:

LGTM 🙌

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-sigs/prow repository.

k8s-ci-robot · 2026-05-20T13:15:40Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: adri1197, matheuscscp
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign sbueringer for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details

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

sbueringer · 2026-06-13T07:07:15Z

@adri1197 We just bumped to v1.37 alpha, so I think this PR can be rebased and moved out of draft

sbueringer · 2026-06-13T07:09:37Z

/ok-to-test

adri1197 · 2026-06-13T09:05:11Z

@adri1197 We just bumped to v1.37 alpha, so I think this PR can be rebased and moved out of draft

@sbueringer since you mentioned this can be rebased and moved out of draft now that we're on v1.37 alpha — would it be acceptable to add the method directly to the Provider interface as a breaking change for the next minor (given controller-runtime's v0.x semver policy allows breaking changes between minors)? Or should we stick with the separate? interface approach from the PR description to keep it non-breaking?

sbueringer · 2026-06-18T07:45:06Z

 	return c.recorderProvider.GetEventRecorder(name)
 }

+func (c *cluster) GetAnnotatedEventRecorder(name string) events.AnnotatedEventRecorder {


I'm wondering if we should really have an additional Get*EventRecorder method instead of just combining both "new" event recorder in an interface in controller-runtime.

I think this is an acceptable breaking change either way

I assume it's easier to use if we just have one method / one recorder. Because folks then don't have to get and pass around two different recorders if they want to use both methods.

@alvaroaleman Do you have an opinion on this?

Context: The old upstream EventRecorder had Event / Eventf / AnnotatedEventf methods. The new API has one interface each for Eventf / AnnotatedEventf

Friendly ping @sbueringer @alvaroaleman 👋 — the rework combining both into a single recorder.EventRecorder interface (per @sbueringer's suggestion) has been pushed.

Would you have a chance to take another look?

Thanks! 😃

Thx! I'll try to take a look soon, probably tomorrow

sbueringer · 2026-06-18T07:48:23Z

@adri1197 We just bumped to v1.37 alpha, so I think this PR can be rebased and moved out of draft

@sbueringer since you mentioned this can be rebased and moved out of draft now that we're on v1.37 alpha — would it be acceptable to add the method directly to the Provider interface as a breaking change for the next minor (given controller-runtime's v0.x semver policy allows breaking changes between minors)? Or should we stick with the separate? interface approach from the PR description to keep it non-breaking?

Sorry just saw this message now. This is the same point I'm bringing up #3509 (comment), right?

EDIT: Ah I think it's a slightly different point

adri1197 · 2026-06-18T16:04:04Z

@adri1197 We just bumped to v1.37 alpha, so I think this PR can be rebased and moved out of draft

@sbueringer since you mentioned this can be rebased and moved out of draft now that we're on v1.37 alpha — would it be acceptable to add the method directly to the Provider interface as a breaking change for the next minor (given controller-runtime's v0.x semver policy allows breaking changes between minors)? Or should we stick with the separate? interface approach from the PR description to keep it non-breaking?

Sorry just saw this message now. This is the same point I'm bringing up #3509 (comment), right?

EDIT: Ah I think it's a slightly different point

No really, it's exactly the answer that I wanted to get 😃. I had some doubts about having different Recorders (well, Providers) per interface.

I've reworked this to combine both into a single recorder.EventRecorder interface that embeds events.EventRecorder + events.AnnotatedEventRecorder. So now GetEventRecorder returns one recorder that does both - no separate method needed. Will push shortly 😄.

Add the missing AnnotatedEventf as a new interface AnnotatedEventRecorder under cluster, manager, and recorder provider Signed-off-by: Adrian Fernandez De La Torre <adri1197@gmail.com>

…face Replace separate GetEventRecorder and GetAnnotatedEventRecorder methods with a single GetEventRecorder that returns a combined recorder.EventRecorder interface embedding both events.EventRecorder and events.AnnotatedEventRecorder. This lets callers use one recorder for both Eventf and AnnotatedEventf without needing to obtain and pass around two separate recorders. Signed-off-by: Adrian Fernandez De La Torre <adri1197@gmail.com>

k8s-ci-robot · 2026-06-19T11:47:11Z

@adri1197: 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-controller-runtime-apidiff	`588f17a`	link	false	`/test pull-controller-runtime-apidiff`

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.

Details

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

sbueringer · 2026-06-26T14:22:34Z

Thank you very much!!

/lgtm

/assign @alvaroaleman

kubernetes-prow · 2026-06-26T14:22:42Z

LGTM label has been added.

Details

Git tree hash: 1d5558c23aedb563ba9492e9b704027b644c5d8f

alvaroaleman · 2026-06-26T14:41:41Z

Marked the change as breaking since it changes the interface, but otherwise lgtm, thank you
/hold cancel

alvaroaleman · 2026-06-26T14:42:01Z

/approve

kubernetes-prow · 2026-06-26T14:42:10Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: adri1197, alvaroaleman, matheuscscp

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [alvaroaleman]

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

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Apr 27, 2026

k8s-ci-robot requested review from JoelSpeed and vincepri April 27, 2026 16:12

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Apr 27, 2026

k8s-ci-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Apr 27, 2026

adri1197 force-pushed the annotations-event-recorder branch from 2e5cff1 to 56f611b Compare May 9, 2026 12:26

matheuscscp approved these changes May 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

This was referenced Jun 5, 2026

Migrate event recorder to fluxcd/pkg/runtime/events.Recorder fluxcd/image-automation-controller#1038

Open

Implement Kubernetes Event API v1 fluxcd/flux2#5761

Open

sbueringer mentioned this pull request Jun 13, 2026

Switch to use events.EventRecorder instead of record.EventRecorder #2141

Closed

k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jun 13, 2026

adri1197 force-pushed the annotations-event-recorder branch from 56f611b to 4a38bfc Compare June 13, 2026 09:04

adri1197 marked this pull request as ready for review June 13, 2026 09:18

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jun 13, 2026

sbueringer reviewed Jun 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

adri1197 added 2 commits June 19, 2026 13:39

🐛 Add GetAnnotatedEventRecorder

1c24018

Add the missing AnnotatedEventf as a new interface AnnotatedEventRecorder under cluster, manager, and recorder provider Signed-off-by: Adrian Fernandez De La Torre <adri1197@gmail.com>

adri1197 force-pushed the annotations-event-recorder branch from a4c69c4 to 588f17a Compare June 19, 2026 11:43

adri1197 requested a review from sbueringer June 22, 2026 14:29

sbueringer added the tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. label Jun 26, 2026

kubernetes-prow Bot assigned alvaroaleman and sbueringer Jun 26, 2026

kubernetes-prow Bot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 26, 2026

alvaroaleman changed the title ~~✨ Add AnnotatedEventRecorderProvider interface~~ :warn: Add AnnotatedEventRecorderProvider interface Jun 26, 2026

alvaroaleman changed the title ~~:warn: Add AnnotatedEventRecorderProvider interface~~ ⚠️ Add AnnotatedEventRecorderProvider interface Jun 26, 2026

kubernetes-prow Bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jun 26, 2026

kubernetes-prow Bot merged commit b2719fd into kubernetes-sigs:main Jun 26, 2026
17 of 19 checks passed

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2026

fix(deps): update module sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime to v0.25.2 lenaxia/k8s-mechanic#27

Open

1 task

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Oct 2, 2026

chore(deps): update module sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime to v0.25.1 scality/image-cache#21

Open

1 task

Conversation

adri1197 commented Apr 27, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 27, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 27, 2026

Uh oh!

matheuscscp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented May 20, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented May 20, 2026

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jun 13, 2026

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jun 13, 2026

Uh oh!

adri1197 commented Jun 13, 2026

Uh oh!

sbueringer Jun 18, 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!

matheuscscp Jun 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

adri1197 Jun 25, 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!

sbueringer Jun 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jun 18, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

adri1197 commented Jun 18, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 19, 2026

Uh oh!

sbueringer commented Jun 26, 2026

Uh oh!

kubernetes-prow Bot commented Jun 26, 2026

Uh oh!

alvaroaleman commented Jun 26, 2026

Uh oh!

alvaroaleman commented Jun 26, 2026

Uh oh!

kubernetes-prow Bot commented Jun 26, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

sbueringer Jun 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

adri1197 Jun 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

sbueringer commented Jun 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

adri1197 commented Jun 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading