Skip to content
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

Independently configure rules and TLS #702

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 10, 2020
Merged

Independently configure rules and TLS #702

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 10, 2020

Conversation

jcmoraisjr
Copy link
Owner

Since the very first controller version, the TLS spec was only configured if a corresponding hostname was found in the rules of the same ingress resource. This commit changes this behavior and reads the TLS array as an independent configuration.

Such update changes backward compatibility since a misconfigured TLS would be silently ignored. However the new behavior better implements the ingress spec.

Since the very first controller version, the TLS spec was only configured
if a corresponding hostname was found in the rules of the same ingress
resource. This commit changes this behavior and reads the TLS array as an
independent configuration.

Such update changes backward compatibility since a misconfigured TLS
would be silently ignored. However the new behavior better implements
the ingress spec.
@jcmoraisjr
Copy link
Owner Author

#669

@Unichron
Copy link
Contributor

Unichron commented Dec 1, 2020

Hi,

Thank you so much for picking this up! I have a question though. Would it be possible to include annotation processing as well when only TLS is configured? Technically a decent part of the annotations configure TLS behavior. This would remove sooo much complexity for us.

@jcmoraisjr
Copy link
Owner Author

Would it be possible to include annotation processing as well when only TLS is configured?

Yup, this is exactly how it should work - no matter where you configured a hostname, either in rules or just in tls, they should be added to the configuration in the same way.

@Unichron
Copy link
Contributor

Unichron commented Dec 1, 2020

Ah sorry I missed the part where you added that line. Thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants