feat: add support for load balancer, listener, and pool tags annotations by A10ss · Pull Request #3058 · kubernetes/cloud-provider-openstack

A10ss · 2026-01-23T07:18:19Z

What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds support for the add tags to load balancer, listener, and pool via the service annotations in cloud-provider-openstack (OCCM).

Which issue this PR fixes(if applicable):
fixes #3032 #2327

Special notes for reviewers:
You can add annotations to the service like:

loadbalancer.openstack.org/listener-tags: '["tags-test"]'
loadbalancer.openstack.org/load-balancer-tags: '["tags-test"]'
loadbalancer.openstack.org/pool-tags: '["tags-test"]'

Then check if the tags have been added to the service's load blancer(the service's type should be load balancer)

Release note:

[openstack-cloud-controller-manager] Support adding tags to load balancers, listeners, and pools via Service annotations.

linux-foundation-easycla · 2026-01-23T07:18:26Z

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

✅ login: A10ss / name: A10ss (24e00c1, 6da530f, cff79d7)

k8s-ci-robot · 2026-01-23T07:18:27Z

[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 anguslees 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:

pkg/openstack/OWNERS

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 · 2026-01-23T07:18:29Z

Welcome @A10ss!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/cloud-provider-openstack 🎉. 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/cloud-provider-openstack 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 · 2026-01-23T07:18:30Z

Hi @A10ss. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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.

kayrus · 2026-01-23T08:05:55Z

/ok-to-test

kayrus

Thanks for the PR. See my initial comments.

kayrus · 2026-01-23T08:10:50Z

+		var desiredTags []string
+		if len(svcConf.lbTags) == 0 {
+			klog.V(4).Infof("No load balancer tags found from service annotation key: %s", ServiceAnnotationLoadBalancerTags)
+		} else if err := json.Unmarshal([]byte(svcConf.lbTags), &desiredTags); err != nil {


I don't like an idea to use json inside the annotation. Can you make it simpler? See an example

Yep, the json format could support more complex tags, and for LB tags we may don't need very complex tags, so I think your point is right, I'll change it.

kayrus · 2026-01-23T08:13:20Z

+	} else {
+		if svcConf.supportLBTags {


This logic feels a bit hard to follow with the nested if statements. Would it be possible to simplify or refactor it to improve readability? The same applies to other parts of new code.

Agree with that, I'd like to do.

… parsing

…onsistency

A10ss · 2026-01-27T05:28:10Z

@kayrus please help review this PR again, thanks!

Garfield96 · 2026-04-07T14:06:55Z

@A10ss Thanks for the PR. We are also very interested in this feature.

@kayrus, @dulek Could you please help review this PR? Thanks

Garfield96 · 2026-06-15T14:51:40Z

Hi @kayrus,
just a gentle ping on this one! Thanks for your time!

k8s-triage-robot · 2026-07-06T14:47:56Z

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
Close this PR with /close
Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

alexanderstephan · 2026-07-15T09:13:34Z

Hi @kayrus, Any updates on this? Thx!

kayrus · 2026-07-15T09:28:34Z

Hi. Apologies for the late response. Please update the initial PR message with a new tags format and add a documentation.

Thinking out loud: this follows the spaghetti code style I'd like us to move away from in future (see #3076). I know this isn't your decision. The overall OCCM code style encourages contributors to develop patches this way. I believe at some point we'll tackle a code refactoring, and unit tests would help tremendously with that. Therefore, please add unit tests to this PR as well.

Garfield96 · 2026-07-16T11:52:24Z

@A10ss Can you include the requested changes by @kayrus, or shall @alexanderstephan or me take care of it? If we don't hear back from you until 20. July 2026, we will fork the PR and add the requested changes.

yahor-kurachkin

I left a few stylistic suggestions. Other than that, it looks good to me. As kayrus mentioned, it also makes sense to add unit tests.

yahor-kurachkin · 2026-07-16T12:00:36Z


+// mergeTags merges existedTags and desiredTags, returns true if all desiredTags are in existedTags.
+func mergeTags(existedTags []string, desiredTags []string) (bool, []string) {
+	if len(existedTags) == 0 || existedTags == nil {


existedTags == nil is unreachable because len(existedTags) returns 0 even for nil slice.

Suggested change

if len(existedTags) == 0 || existedTags == nil {

if len(existedTags) == 0 {

yahor-kurachkin · 2026-07-16T12:09:33Z

+	} else {
+		return false, tagSet.Union(desiredTagsSet).List()
+	}


Suggested change

} else {

return false, tagSet.Union(desiredTagsSet).List()

}

}

return false, tagSet.Union(desiredTagsSet).List()

The else block in the end of the function is redundant and can be removed.

yahor-kurachkin · 2026-07-16T12:58:32Z

+		var desiredTags []string
+		if len(svcConf.lbTags) == 0 {
+			klog.V(4).Infof("No load balancer tags found from service annotation key: %s", ServiceAnnotationLoadBalancerTags)
+		} else {
+			desiredTags = cpoutil.SplitTrim(svcConf.lbTags, ',')
+		}


Not a big deal, but I think this version is a bit cleaner. SplitTrim works fine with empty strings. And this block of code is repeated several times.

Suggested change

var desiredTags []string

if len(svcConf.lbTags) == 0 {

klog.V(4).Infof("No load balancer tags found from service annotation key: %s", ServiceAnnotationLoadBalancerTags)

} else {

desiredTags = cpoutil.SplitTrim(svcConf.lbTags, ',')

}

desiredTags := cpoutil.SplitTrim(svcConf.lbTags, ',')

if len(desiredTags) == 0 {

klog.V(4).Infof("No load balancer tags found from service annotation key: %s", ServiceAnnotationLoadBalancerTags)

}

alexanderstephan · 2026-07-24T10:31:24Z

Hi @yahor-kurachkin, I integrated the review in #3149. Please take a look there!

k8s-ci-robot added the release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. label Jan 23, 2026

k8s-ci-robot requested review from anguslees and kayrus January 23, 2026 07:18

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 Jan 23, 2026

k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jan 23, 2026

feat: add support for load balancer, listener, and pool tags annotations

6da530f

A10ss force-pushed the support-add-tags-to-lb branch from b9d7293 to 6da530f Compare January 23, 2026 07:37

k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. and removed cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jan 23, 2026

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 Jan 23, 2026

kayrus reviewed Jan 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

A10ss added 2 commits January 27, 2026 11:07

feat: refactor load balancer tag handling to use SplitTrim for better…

cff79d7

… parsing

feat: streamline load balancer listener tag management for improved c…

24e00c1

…onsistency

A10ss requested a review from kayrus January 27, 2026 05:28

kubernetes-prow Bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Jul 6, 2026

yahor-kurachkin reviewed Jul 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

alexanderstephan mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2026

feat: add support for load balancer, listener, and pool tags annotations #3149

Open

	if len(existedTags) == 0 \|\| existedTags == nil {
	if len(existedTags) == 0 {

Uh oh!

Conversation

A10ss commented Jan 23, 2026

Uh oh!

linux-foundation-easycla Bot commented Jan 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 23, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 23, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 23, 2026

Uh oh!

kayrus commented Jan 23, 2026

Uh oh!

kayrus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kayrus Jan 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

A10ss Jan 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kayrus Jan 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

A10ss Jan 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

A10ss commented Jan 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Garfield96 commented Apr 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Garfield96 commented Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-triage-robot commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

alexanderstephan commented Jul 15, 2026

Uh oh!

kayrus commented Jul 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Garfield96 commented Jul 16, 2026

Uh oh!

yahor-kurachkin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

yahor-kurachkin Jul 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

yahor-kurachkin Jul 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

yahor-kurachkin Jul 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

yahor-kurachkin Jul 16, 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!

alexanderstephan commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

linux-foundation-easycla Bot commented Jan 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

yahor-kurachkin Jul 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading