✨ (crd): Add +kubebuilder:skip:description markers to omit package and spec descriptions

[camilamacedo86]

This adds two new markers to reduce CRD size when types have extensive documentation:

• Spec-level: Skip description for specific specs

  type MyCRD struct {                                                           
      // This description will appear in the CRD                                
      ImportantField string `json:"importantField"`                             
                                                   
      // This long description won't appear in the CRD                          
      // +kubebuilder:skip:description                                     
      LargeField ComplexType `json:"largeField"`                                
  }

• Package-level: Skip all descriptions in a package

  // +kubebuilder:skip:description                                              
  package v1alpha1                                          

Useful when CRDs exceed size limits due to extensive godoc comments on deeply nested types.

Closes: #441

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: camilamacedo86
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign vincepri 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

[Vaishnav88sk]

Should this also work at the field level, or is it intentionally package/spec-scoped only? Worth documenting that scope explicitly in the marker definition so users don't go hunting.

[camilamacedo86]

Hi @Vaishnav88sk

Should this also work at the field level, or is it intentionally package/spec-scoped only? Worth documenting that scope explicitly in the marker definition so users don't go hunting.

Thank you for looking on this one.
But yes, it is the field level as well.
You can check the description examples

Please, feel free to let me know if the PR description does not clarifies this one.

[Vaishnav88sk]

Hi @Vaishnav88sk

Should this also work at the field level, or is it intentionally package/spec-scoped only? Worth documenting that scope explicitly in the marker definition so users don't go hunting.

Thank you for looking on this one. But yes, it is the field level as well. You can check the description examples

Please, feel free to let me know if the PR description does not clarifies this one.

Got it, thanks for clarifying! Checked the examples in the description - the field-level scope is clear from there. Makes sense as-is then. 👍

[Vaishnav88sk]

LGTM 👍🏻

[camilamacedo86]

Hi @sbueringer @JoelSpeed @alvaroaleman

This one has LGTM from community members, wdyt?
Lets get merged?