-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 463
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
conformance: missmatch SectionName
and Port
will trigger NoMatchingParent
#2582
conformance: missmatch SectionName
and Port
will trigger NoMatchingParent
#2582
Conversation
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.
Thanks for this PR @tao12345666333! The test looks good to me, I left a couple of comments below.
conformance/tests/httproute-invalid-parentref-section-name-not-matching-port.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
conformance/tests/httproute-invalid-parentref-section-name-not-matching-port.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
/retest |
Also, the release note is missing here. Since this is a conformance test, |
conformance/tests/httproute-invalid-parentref-section-name-not-matching-port.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…rent Signed-off-by: Jintao Zhang <zhangjintao9020@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Mattia Lavacca <lavacca.mattia@gmail.com>
297ee7e
to
c56677f
Compare
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.
Apart from a very picky little thing, it looks good to me.
conformance/tests/httproute-invalid-parentref-section-name-not-matching-port.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
conformance/tests/httproute-invalid-parentref-section-name-not-matching-port.yaml
Show resolved
Hide resolved
conformance/tests/httproute-invalid-parentref-section-name-not-matching-port.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
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.
/approve
will defer to @arkodg, @sunjayBhatia for the final lgtm. |
this looks good @tao12345666333, have you tried this test out on any implementation ? |
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I have tried it in Kong Ingress locally. Once this PR be merged, the KIC will enable this conformance test, and unblock Kong/kubernetes-ingress-controller#5147 |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mlavacca, sunjayBhatia, tao12345666333 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 |
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.
fails with contour since the gateway name has a really long name and that causes a label we add to some resources to be > 63 chars
selfishly it would be great to have a shorter gateway name here but otherwise the logic of the test looks good
test passes with contour when i shorten the gateway name |
Thanks @sunjayBhatia Good point. Let me shorten the name, prevent it from destroying other projects |
sounds like a feature, not a bug |
added #2592 since the long gw name has some wider implications, namely GEP-1762 |
@tao12345666333 This test is running as part of the |
@sjberman oh, yes. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind test
/area conformance
What this PR does / why we need it:
According to the description, when both Port and SectionName are specified, the name and port of the selected listener
must match both specified values.
https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/blob/e2f02aa0fc9dfa27be271397801f52f4e0a78acc/apis/v1/shared_types.go#L124C1-L130C38
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: