validation: take parentRef.port into account #1995
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/bug
Currently, we cannot have:
```yaml
parentRefs:
- name: gw1
port: 80
- name: gw1
port: 8080
```
This seems like an oversight; our validation only takes sectionName into consideration.
Note: this DOES allow overlapping parentSection selection. For exampe, i may select port=80 and sectionName=http
which refer to the same thing. This is not something we can catch in
validation. Perhaps we need to clarify the behavior here in the spec, if
its not clear. Note this could always happen with 2 different routes
anyways, though.
howardjohn
force-pushed
the
validation/allow-port-specifier
branch
from
077f890 to
b9228d9
Compare
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
robscott
reviewed
May 4, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @howardjohn! Mostly LGTM, but would be helpful to have one more test case.
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
lgtm
howardjohn
force-pushed
the
validation/allow-port-specifier
branch
from
00841bd to
ac4a2fb
Compare
gyohuangxin
reviewed
May 5, 2023
apis/v1beta1/validation/common.go
Outdated
| if len(s[0]) == 0 || len(*targetSection) == 0 { | ||
| errs = append(errs, field.Required(path.Child("parentRefs"), "sectionNames must be specified when more than one parentRef refers to the same parent")) | ||
| if s.UnsortedList()[0] == (parentQualifier{}) || pq == (parentQualifier{}) { | ||
| errs = append(errs, field.Required(path.Child("parentRefs"), "sectionNames or port must be specified when more than one parentRef refers to the same parent")) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| errs = append(errs, field.Required(path.Child("parentRefs"), "sectionNames or port must be specified when more than one parentRef refers to the same parent")) | |
| errs = append(errs, field.Required(path.Child("parentRefs"), "sectionNames or ports must be specified when more than one parentRef refers to the same parent")) |
|
LGTM, but a small typo. @howardjohn Thanks! |
robscott
reviewed
May 5, 2023
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: howardjohn, robscott The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
howardjohn
added a commit
to howardjohn/istio
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2023
this was unimplemented. Depends on kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api#1995 Tested by kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api#1989
istio-testing
pushed a commit
to istio/istio
that referenced
this pull request
May 18, 2023
* gateway mesh: support `port` field this was unimplemented. Depends on kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api#1995 Tested by kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api#1989 * Stable
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
Currently, we cannot have:
This seems like an oversight; our validation only takes sectionName into consideration.
Note: this DOES allow overlapping parentSection selection. For exampe, i may select port=80 and sectionName=http which refer to the same thing. This is not something we can catch in validation. Perhaps we need to clarify the behavior here in the spec, if its not clear. Note this could always happen with 2 different routes anyways, though.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: