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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added support for upstream verification for TCPProxy #6079
Added support for upstream verification for TCPProxy #6079
Changes from 1 commit
6773a1a
e0938e2
9450ff5
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Check warning on line 1211 in internal/dag/httpproxy_processor.go
Codecov / codecov/patch
internal/dag/httpproxy_processor.go#L1210-L1211
Check warning on line 1222 in internal/dag/httpproxy_processor.go
Codecov / codecov/patch
internal/dag/httpproxy_processor.go#L1219-L1222
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe a refactor for the future, but since we only really have one fixture for cert content, we end up asserting on the same value everywhere (
[]byte(featuretests.CERTIFICATE)
), would be good to maybe at least use the field fromcaSecret
for readability? (looks likesec2
in the other test below?)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 While adding the test I was reminded that I would have preferred to remove the hardcoded test certificates & private keys from the code. I'll check if I could simplify this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've updated the tests so that they use the field from CA secret, though this will be bit simpler if we merge #6100 as it will allow passing the secret itself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now updated according to #6100