add and use a deduplicating source #185
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
|
We definitely should add logging (at least debug). |
|
This is a cleaner abstraction, thanks for doing that. I agree that having the logging in if there is another record for the DNS entry with a different Target though would be desirable for a debugging/usability standpoint. |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| for _, ep := range endpoints { | ||
| identifier := ep.DNSName + " / " + ep.Target |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
flaky I would say, especially since we don't do any sanitisation on hostnames at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
uglier, but more bullet-proof would be collected := map[string]map[string]bool{} or map[string][]string :(
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How would a nested map make it more bullet-proof? E.g. the sanitization issue you mention still applies, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yup, you are right. probably potential issues with sanitisation can be postponed as well :)
|
small comment above, otherwise LGTM |
|
Just a note that the current PR has a different purpose than #183 . This PR resolves the harmless case when two resources have same target and DNS names, hence can and should be deduplicated. This #183 on the other hand aims to resolve a bigger problem of clashing DNS names, however is initially aimed at resolving #182, which is resolved by this PR in a simpler way :) |
|
👍 |
ideahitme
added
the
lgtm
* feat: add and use a deduplicating source * chore: add log entry when endpoint was deduplicated
This provides an alternative solution to #182 by using a deduplicating source on the outer edge of the sources chain.
Let me know what you think about this and which approach you prefer compared to #183.
However, as Sources were intended to be extensible a
DedupSourcedoesn't harm and might come in handy in any case./cc @jrnt30 @ideahitme