-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 503
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
[GEP-1911] h2c backend protocol conformance #2456
Conversation
aed554d
to
afc0295
Compare
afc0295
to
ec0d124
Compare
ec0d124
to
7770263
Compare
7770263
to
ce897df
Compare
2bcffb1
to
c9a0b0e
Compare
Thanks @dprotaso! This looks reasonable to me, but will defer to conformance approvers on this one. |
/assign @arkodg @mlavacca @sunjayBhatia |
gwNN := types.NamespacedName{Name: "same-namespace", Namespace: ns} | ||
gwAddr := kubernetes.GatewayAndHTTPRoutesMustBeAccepted(t, suite.Client, suite.TimeoutConfig, suite.ControllerName, kubernetes.NewGatewayRef(gwNN), routeNN) | ||
|
||
// We are not testing the h2c HTTP upgrade mechanism as it is deprecated |
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.
ha good to know
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.
looks good !
/approve
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.
looks like
gateway-api/conformance/conformance_test.go
Lines 49 to 50 in 0cc3e0e
v1alpha2.AddToScheme(client.Scheme()) | |
v1beta1.AddToScheme(client.Scheme()) |
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.
other than the previous comment, everything seems to work, (I cheated a little with Contour and added the required annotation contour supports for h2c to get the tests to pass/fail accordingly since we don't support the appprotocol field yet)
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.
I guess I'll request changes officially still since I have some outstanding requests and there is a prerequisite change that needs to happen before these tests actually run successfully
what do you mean? |
the v1 api group/version needs to be added to the scheme otherwise the tests don't run otherwise everything looks good |
Made a separate PR: #2511 |
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 minor nitpick, lgtm 👍
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: arkodg, dprotaso, mlavacca 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 |
Since @sunjayBhatia's requested changes have been addressed in a separate PR, I think we can merge this one, as no other concern popped up. /lgtm |
/kind test
/area conformance
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds a conformance test validating implementations support h2c when the target Kubernetes Service Service Port has a
kubernetes.io/h2c
appProtocol
Depends on echo-basic changes which are being bumped here: #2456
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Related #1911
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: