Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Variety of fixes in response to feedback on #780 #796
Variety of fixes in response to feedback on #780 #796
Changes from all commits
ffd6005
0fbc16b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
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.
After reading your comments,
is more aligned to what you mean ?
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.
This probably could have a better name, but in this case I'm not actually changing the name, just moving it from gateway_types to gatewayclass_types. The idea is for it to indicate that at least one Gateway is using the GatewayClass and therefore the GatewayClass should not be deleted.
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.
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.
This is actually something that came out of API review, I can't remember which of the reviewers suggested it, but the recommendation was to remove "" as a possible value. An empty or unspecified value here would continue to be interpreted at "", but there was no point in differentiating between empty and "*" since they were interpreted the same way. Let me add that to the PR description.
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.
Do you mean as following ?
// If both the Listener and HTTPRoute have specified hostnames, only exact match
// will be considered.
// For example, if a Listener specified
test.example.com
, and the// HTTPRoute specified
test.example.com
andtest.example.net
,//
test.example.net
is not be considered for a match.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.
This is trying to describe how wildcard hostname matching should work with hostnames specified on HTTPRoutes. I don't think removing the wildcard from the example would help here, but I may be misunderstanding what you're suggesting.
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.
is there any k8s Service (Service with no endpoints) that does not have endpoints ?
maybe "resource" is more accurate here ?
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 think what we're trying to communicate here is a Service that does not have any endpoints, likely because there are no Pods running that have been selected by that service.
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.
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 think there's probably room for a broader discussion around the usability of these all caps RFC terms, but so far the guidance from other reviewers has been to move more into this capitalization style. We can add to the agenda for next community meeting and/or create an issue to discuss if that's helpful. I don't have a very strong opinion here other than trying to be consistent with what we've done elsewhere.
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.
This is definitely a thing we've copied from RFCs, where the increased emphasis is very purposeful - it's a guide for people implementing the spec that allows the reader to easily find the things they MUST do when reading what is often a long and dry specification. That's why I'm supportive of the all-caps.