design-proposal: instancetype.kubevirt.io - Support custom resource sizing

[lyarwood]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Instance types and preferences provide a way to define common VirtualMachine workload resource sizing and preferences.

The common-instancetypes project within KubeVirt currently provides a set of standardized instance types and preferences that can be deployed by virt-operator alongside all of the other core KubeVirt components.

While the resources provided by the common-instancetypes project are a great starting point they are generalized and could never possibly cover all workload resourcing and preference use cases.

As such this design proposal seeks to make it as easy as possible for both cluster admins and users to create their own customized versions of these commonly deployed resources specific to their workloads. Additionally the instance type API itself will be made more flexible by making vCPU and memory resource sizing optional within an instance type, allowing users to provide their own sizing within their VirtualMachine while still retaining the remaining benefits of using an instance type.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Checklist

This checklist is not enforcing, but it's a reminder of items that could be relevant to every PR.
Approvers are expected to review this list.

• Design: A design document was considered and is present (link) or not required
• PR: The PR description is expressive enough and will help future contributors
• Code: Write code that humans can understand and Keep it simple
• Refactor: You have left the code cleaner than you found it (Boy Scout Rule)
• Upgrade: Impact of this change on upgrade flows was considered and addressed if required
• Testing: New code requires new unit tests. New features and bug fixes require at least on e2e test
• Documentation: A user-guide update was considered and is present (link) or not required. You want a user-guide update if it's a user facing feature / API change.
• Community: Announcement to kubevirt-dev was considered

Release note:

NONE

[kubevirt-bot]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[kubevirt-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign cwilkers for approval. 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

[jean-edouard]

Lots of pedantic formatting comments, feel free to ignore.
My only real question is around the need for a new virtctl command.
Thanks!

[jean-edouard]

Why? Can't users just kubectl edit to make changes?

[lyarwood]

The use case with virtctl customize is that we want to start with an object in the cluster, make some small changes, automate kind conversion/metadata removal and then output the newly crafted definition.

Does kubectl edit actually support taking an existing object and only outputting the result locally? I thought it always attempted to mutate the object in the cluster?

[jean-edouard]

Ah so the idea is for users to be able to make a copy of a system-wide instancetype into their namespace so they can modify it?
Then I would suggest something like virtctl instancetype clone with a mandatory namespace argument. Then users can kubectl edit the resulting object. Would that make sense?
I just don't like the fact that virtctl customize isn't self explanatory.
Sorry for the extremely long delay btw, I somehow didn't get notified of your answer...

[lyarwood]

Lots of pedantic formatting comments, feel free to ignore. My only real question is around the need for a new virtctl command. Thanks!

Thanks @jean-edouard , really appreciate the review!

[xpivarc]

/sig compute