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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Implement of GEP-995 #2985

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 19, 2024
Merged

Implement of GEP-995 #2985

merged 3 commits into from
Aug 19, 2024

Conversation

howardjohn
Copy link
Contributor

What type of PR is this?

/kind gep

What this PR does / why we need it:

Implements GEP-995

GEP: #2593 (merged)
Docs: #2946 (merged)

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

Release note was in 2593

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/gep PRs related to Gateway Enhancement Proposal(GEP) cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Apr 17, 2024
LiorLieberman
LiorLieberman reviewed Apr 18, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@LiorLieberman LiorLieberman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Generally looks good to me,
One nit: the GEP mentions

"This format for the name field of route rules differs from the pattern adopted for the SectionName type, which was thought for specifying mainly DNS subdomain names (RFC 1123), due to its use in the gateway listeners originally"

So although it is just a string, using v1.SectionName is a bit confusing. Maybe a dedicated type or simply a string?

@guicassolato
Copy link
Contributor

Generally looks good to me, One nit: the GEP mentions

"This format for the name field of route rules differs from the pattern adopted for the SectionName type, which was thought for specifying mainly DNS subdomain names (RFC 1123), due to its use in the gateway listeners originally"

So although it is just a string, using v1.SectionName is a bit confusing. Maybe a dedicated type or simply a string?

SectionName won't allow names such as my-rule123, my_rule, or myRule. https://go.dev/play/p/zRACGkGb_EG

Not sure what the best path is here, but I guess starting with SectionName is fine. Maybe it's the GEP that should change; then, if requested, another one opened to modify the definition of SectionName perhaps?

arkodg
arkodg reviewed Apr 18, 2024
View reviewed changes
apis/v1/grpcroute_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Apr 19, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 9, 2024
@shaneutt shaneutt removed their request for review May 9, 2024 14:53
@robscott
Copy link
Member

@guicassolato or @howardjohn I know this GEP is already essentially in scope for v1.2, but can one of you take a minute to leave a comment on #3103 so we make sure we're tracking it?

@craigbox craigbox mentioned this pull request May 22, 2024
Merged
@guicassolato guicassolato mentioned this pull request Jun 18, 2024
Merged
@howardjohn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Now that #3166 is merged I think this is unblocked. Let me know if there are any changes needed.

robscott
robscott reviewed Jul 10, 2024
View reviewed changes
apis/v1/httproute_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/test/cel/httproute_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@howardjohn howardjohn requested a review from robscott July 22, 2024 22:01
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 30, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 8, 2024
@howardjohn
Copy link
Contributor Author

@robscott can you take another look?

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

PR needs rebase.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 9, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 15, 2024
robscott
robscott reviewed Aug 15, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@robscott robscott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @howardjohn!

apis/v1/grpcroute_types.go Show resolved Hide resolved
apis/v1/httproute_types.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/test/cel/httproute_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
robscott
robscott reviewed Aug 15, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@robscott robscott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @howardjohn! LGTM once tests pass.

/approve

apis/v1/grpcroute_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 15, 2024
@robscott robscott added this to the v1.2.0 milestone Aug 16, 2024
mlavacca
mlavacca reviewed Aug 19, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@mlavacca mlavacca left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, @howardjohn!

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 19, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 4cd0ab4 into kubernetes-sigs:main Aug 19, 2024
8 checks passed
@howardjohn howardjohn mentioned this pull request Aug 19, 2024
Open
@guydc guydc mentioned this pull request Aug 20, 2024
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@robscott robscott robscott left review comments

@arkodg arkodg arkodg left review comments

@mlavacca mlavacca mlavacca left review comments

@LiorLieberman LiorLieberman LiorLieberman left review comments

Assignees

@mlavacca mlavacca

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/gep PRs related to Gateway Enhancement Proposal(GEP) lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.2.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
7 participants
@howardjohn @guicassolato @robscott @k8s-ci-robot @arkodg @mlavacca @LiorLieberman