Fix Watch follow parameter detection

[tamird]

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

OpenAPI-generated methods now document parameter names and types on separate
lines. Watch still looked for the previous combined :param bool follow:
form, so it sent watch=True to pod log methods. Those methods reject the
unexpected keyword instead of streaming logs.

Match the generated :param follow: form and update the existing test fixture
to use the current generated docstring shape.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #2615

Special notes for your reviewer:

None.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Fix Watch.stream selecting watch instead of follow when streaming pod logs.

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

[kubernetes-prow]

Welcome @tamird!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-client/python 🎉. 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-client/python 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. 😃

[yliaog]

@goutamadwant could you review this PR?

[goutamadwant]

Thanks, this looks good to me.

This covers the same regression I tried to address in #2612, but does it with the smaller change by updating the existing fixture to the current generated docstring shape. I agree this is the cleaner approach.

One small non-blocking note: this also addresses #2610, which was the original report linked from #2612. It may be worth linking that issue too, or marking it as a duplicate of #2615.

[opokornyy]

Hey @tamird, are you planning to move this PR forward, or should we implement a workaround instead?

[tamird]

Hey @tamird, are you planning to move this PR forward, or should we implement a workaround instead?

@opokornyy is there action required from me? Happy to make changes; were any requested?

[opokornyy]

Hey @tamird, are you planning to move this PR forward, or should we implement a workaround instead?

@opokornyy is there action required from me? Happy to make changes; were any requested?

No changes were requested on my end. @roycaihw, would you mind taking a look when you have a chance? Thanks!

[yliaog]

/lgtm
/approve

[kubernetes-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: goutamadwant, tamird, yliaog

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:

• kubernetes/base/OWNERS [yliaog]

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

[yliaog]

thanks for the PR