feat(trafficrouting): support ingresses with multiple service ports in TrafficRouting.ALB spec #3551
Conversation
ArenSH
force-pushed
the
alb-multiple-service-ports-for-ingresses
branch
from
226d0fe to
db15088
Compare
ArenSH
changed the title
Go Published Test Results2 205 tests 2 205 ✅ 2m 58s ⏱️ Results for commit 1554b99. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3551 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 83.88% 83.99% +0.10%
==========================================
Files 163 163
Lines 18560 18609 +49
==========================================
+ Hits 15569 15630 +61
+ Misses 2119 2112 -7
+ Partials 872 867 -5 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
E2E Tests Published Test Results 4 files 4 suites 3h 24m 52s ⏱️ For more details on these failures, see this check. Results for commit 1554b99. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
ArenSH
force-pushed
the
alb-multiple-service-ports-for-ingresses
branch
from
4b6e4b1 to
ac50687
Compare
ArenSH
force-pushed
the
alb-multiple-service-ports-for-ingresses
branch
from
ac50687 to
7dcf17c
Compare
|
|
Great thanks @ArenSH . We were waiting for this feature for a long time to use it in our 30+ services. Possibility to use multi-port will unblock onboarding of ArgoRollouts for our system. Hope to see these feature in next ArgoRollout release :) |
ArenSH
force-pushed
the
alb-multiple-service-ports-for-ingresses
branch
from
7dcf17c to
8d54526
Compare
|
ArenSH
force-pushed
the
alb-multiple-service-ports-for-ingresses
branch
2 times, most recently
from
94c9ac9 to
8b93239
Compare
ArenSH
force-pushed
the
alb-multiple-service-ports-for-ingresses
branch
from
8b93239 to
c7a9095
Compare
ArenSH
force-pushed
the
alb-multiple-service-ports-for-ingresses
branch
from
c7a9095 to
1554b99
Compare
ArenSH
force-pushed
the
alb-multiple-service-ports-for-ingresses
branch
from
1554b99 to
e861faf
Compare
Published E2E Test Results 4 files 4 suites 3h 10m 3s ⏱️ For more details on these failures, see this check. Results for commit c00419a. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Published Unit Test Results2 327 tests 2 327 ✅ 3m 3s ⏱️ Results for commit c00419a. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
|
Is anyone reviewing this PR? We are interested in the functionality and would love to see it included as soon as possible 🙏 |
ArenSH
force-pushed
the
alb-multiple-service-ports-for-ingresses
branch
2 times, most recently
from
bf024a7 to
0179f8b
Compare
|
|
@zachaller @alexmt I'm not very experienced with github process, so please let me know if anything left to be done from my side. |
zachaller
force-pushed
the
alb-multiple-service-ports-for-ingresses
branch
from
0179f8b to
7e714e0
Compare
|
@ArenSH Could you take a look at the conflicts this PR looks pretty good I want to test a few things out with it though. |
…ow specifing multiple ports per ingress Signed-off-by: Armen Shakhbazian <armen.shakhbazian@gmail.com>
…fficRouting.ALB.ServicePorts and adjust existing ones Signed-off-by: Armen Shakhbazian <armen.shakhbazian@gmail.com>
…afficRouting.ALB.ServicePorts Signed-off-by: Armen Shakhbazian <armen.shakhbazian@gmail.com>
…Routing.ALB docs Signed-off-by: Armen Shakhbazian <armen.shakhbazian@gmail.com>
…improve coverage Signed-off-by: Armen Shakhbazian <armen.shakhbazian@gmail.com>
ArenSH
force-pushed
the
alb-multiple-service-ports-for-ingresses
branch
from
7e714e0 to
c00419a
Compare
|
|
@zachaller sorry, was away and had no access to laptop. I've rebased the branch from master and fixed the conflicts. |
Overview
This request introduces new
.ServicePortsfield forTrafficRouting.ALBto manage ingresses with multiple ports.Implementation details
There were several options to add ability to manage ingresses with multiple ports:
Change behavior and format of .Ingresses field (❌)
Instead of a list of strings, the format of
.Ingressescould've been changed to a list of{name: string, servicePorts: []int32}objects. This option is the best one from the consistency and user experience point of view. Unfortunately, it is not possible to implement without introducing braking changes. Even if the controller adjusted to accept both formats (list of strings and list of objects), older clients will fail to interact with the new controller or will overwrite and corrupt.Ingressesfield on attempt to change it.Use new api version, like v1alpha2 (❌)
This is a major change, and it should be made by maintainers of the project, not a contributor like me.
Add new .ServicePorts field (✅)
Although it adds a bit more confusion to users (having to make sense of ingress/ingresses/servicePort/servicePorts fields), it is the least invasive one. This field is optional and allows specifying multiple ports for some ingresses (other ones will fall back to
.ServicePortvalue)Changes
The
.ServicePortsfields slightly changes behavior and validation ofALBTrafficRouting:.ServicePortis now optional field. The validation will check that for all referenced ingresses there is either an entry in.ServicePortslist or.ServicePortis specified as fallback..Ingresscan be specified using.ServicePorts..Ingresseslist must have service ports specified either with an entry in.ServicePortsor with.ServicePort..ServicePortsmust refer to ingress specified in.Ingresseslist (or to.Ingressif.Ingressesis nil)To avoid confusion, it is recommended to use
.Ingress+.ServicePortonly for a single ingress with a single port. In all other cases.Ingresses+.ServicePortsis preferred.Links:
Checklist:
"fix(controller): Updates such and such. Fixes #1234".