USHIFT-2245: Add router namespace ownership enhancement #1552
Conversation
|
@pacevedom: This pull request references USHIFT-2245 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the task to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this: 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
pacevedom
force-pushed
the
USHIFT-2245
branch
3 times, most recently
from
b5ce26f
to
c5010a9
Compare
pacevedom
force-pushed
the
USHIFT-2245
branch
4 times, most recently
from
775ff0f
to
fc0b75a
Compare
|
@pacevedom: This pull request references USHIFT-2245 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the task to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
pacevedom
force-pushed
the
USHIFT-2245
branch
from
fc0b75a
to
02ed929
Compare
|
#1555 is changing the enhancement template in a way that will cause the header check in the linter job to fail for existing PRs. If this PR is merged within the development period for 4.16 you may override the linter if the only failures are caused by issues with the headers (please make sure the markdown formatting is correct). If this PR is not merged before 4.16 development closes, please update the enhancement to conform to the new template. |
pacevedom
force-pushed
the
USHIFT-2245
branch
from
02ed929
to
55017e4
Compare
|
/assign @alebedev87 |
|
|
||
| ## Graduation Criteria | ||
| ### Dev Preview -> Tech Preview | ||
| - Ability to utilize the enhancement end to end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the status of this feature for MicroShift 4.16? Tech Preview or GA?
|
|
||
| MicroShift is also focused on single-node deployments, and runs without an | ||
| external load balancer and in environments without access to deep DNS | ||
| integration. The primary means of accessing the apps on the MicroShift host |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You could have a few of them, but depends on the application. Additional routers, different ingress controllers, direct service exposure, etc.
All of those are out of control for MicroShift, the default router is provided as a helper and a means of easily accessing applications.
| ### Workflow Description | ||
|
|
||
| ### API Extensions | ||
| To allow configuring the router a new option is exposed through the MicroShift |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the user going to add this, or is part of the default config and set to InterNamespaceAllowed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The default is InterNamespaceAllowed and will always be present. Users may modify this field to whichever value they need (Strict or InterNamespaceAllowed).
| ## Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy | ||
| N/A | ||
|
|
||
| ## Version Skew Strategy |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The OCP enhancement notes, "The API defines empty equivalent to Strict, therefore all the clients will have to keep that check to remain backwards compatible."
How will this work in MicroShift with the Y+2 skew? Is it a concern?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
MicroShift will always default this field to InterNamespaceAllowed if not present. In the event of a skew where this field is not present, MicroShift ignores the unknown config parameters and does nothing with them.
|
@pacevedom: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
/approve
The implementation for this has already started to land. If we end up needing substantial changes we can come back and update the doc.
@pacevedom , please get someone to apply a lgtm when you're ready.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dhellmann 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 |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
/lgtm |
Targeting 4.16, include the namespace ownership configuration parameter for the router in MicroShift.