创建一个错误配置的PropagationPolicy后删除不了的问题

[Ryan-Kevin]

错误配置如下：

Name:         test3-ingress-policy
Namespace:    default
Labels:       propagationpolicy.karmada.io/permanent-id=ca07bae5-21b5-4526-a8f8-aa0e620e15db
Annotations:  <none>
API Version:  policy.karmada.io/v1alpha1
Kind:         PropagationPolicy
Metadata:
  Creation Timestamp:             2025-11-07T01:17:36Z
  Deletion Grace Period Seconds:  0
  Deletion Timestamp:             2025-11-07T01:18:41Z
  Finalizers:
    karmada.io/propagation-policy-controller
  Generation:  2
  Managed Fields:
    API Version:  policy.karmada.io/v1alpha1
    Fields Type:  FieldsV1
    fieldsV1:
      f:spec:
        .:
        f:conflictResolution:
        f:placement:
          .:
          f:clusterAffinity:
            .:
            f:clusterNames:
        f:preemption:
        f:priority:
        f:resourceSelectors:
        f:schedulerName:
    Manager:         ___go_build_karmada_demo.exe
    Operation:       Update
    Time:            2025-11-07T01:17:36Z
  Resource Version:  2556268
  UID:               1ed6b83c-0d0a-40a7-a867-774e8fbac63d
Spec:
  Conflict Resolution:  Abort
  Placement:
    Cluster Affinity:
      Cluster Names:
        sk224
  Preemption:  Never
  Priority:    0
  Resource Selectors:
    API Version:   v1
    Kind:          Ingress
    Name:          test3-ingress
    Namespace:     default
  Scheduler Name:  default-scheduler
Events:            <none>

具体错误在于分发资源配置的version和kind，删除时控制台卡住。

[zhzhuang-zju]

@Ryan-Kevin The policy deletion process is blocked by a finalizer. It needs to look up the matched resource template based on the version and kind you configured, and then clean up the labels. You can update this policy by correcting its Resource Selectors, after which the deletion process will proceed normally.

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

Thanks~ @Ryan-Kevin

The YAML content can be wrapped in the following format for better presentation:

[Ryan-Kevin]

好的

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

@Ryan-Kevin The policy deletion process is blocked by a finalizer. It needs to look up the matched resource template based on the version and kind you configured, and then clean up the labels. You can update this policy by correcting its Resource Selectors, after which the deletion process will proceed normally.

Thanks @zhzhuang-zju I was just about to test it. Thank you for your problem analysis.

Does this mean that I create a PropagationPolicy that does not match any resources, and then I try to delete it, which will not succeed?

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

Let me update the labels.
/kind question
/remove-kind bug

[zhzhuang-zju]

Does this mean that I create a PropagationPolicy that does not match any resources, and then I try to delete it, which will not succeed?

Yes, this issue was actually considered during the initial design of the policy deletion workflow, and the current approach was chosen for the following reasons:

1. When encountering this issue, it can be resolved by correcting the policy configuration.
2. During deletion, we should ensure leftover resources are properly cleaned up. I did consider skipping the cleanup if a noMatchError occurs, but wasn't confident that this outcome would be reliable.
   

   karmada/pkg/util/restmapper/restmapper.go

   Lines 87 to 91 in 4b5aa6b

   	restMapping, err := g.getMapper().RESTMapping(gk, versions...)
   	if meta.IsNoMatchError(err) {
   	// hit here means a resource might be missing from the current rest mapper,
   	// probably because a new resource(CRD) has been added, we have to reload
   	// resource and rebuild the rest mapper.

   
   I prefer retrying and making the issue visible to the user over risking missed cleanup.

[zhzhuang-zju]

@Ryan-Kevin Has your policy been deleted yet?

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

@Ryan-Kevin Has your policy been deleted yet?

I just asked him, and the policy has been deleted.

It seems we can optimize the timing of adding finalizers to improve user experience.

[zhzhuang-zju]

It seems we can optimize the timing of adding finalizers to improve user experience.

Do you mean adding the finalizers only when the policy matches a resource? That's a valuable perspective.