Add --disable-catch-all option to disable catch-all server #3586
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
wayt
force-pushed
the
disable-catch-all
branch
from
5df1e69 to
8fd7508
Compare
|
Test failure seems legit. |
wayt
force-pushed
the
disable-catch-all
branch
5 times, most recently
from
dc310a6 to
d106817
Compare
wayt
force-pushed
the
disable-catch-all
branch
from
d106817 to
1678d99
Compare
|
@ElvinEfendi it's all good 🎉 |
Can you be more specific? |
|
/approve |
aledbf
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
aledbf
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
@ElvinEfendi ping |
| klog.Infof("creating ingress %v based on annotation %v", curIng.Name, class.IngressKey) | ||
| recorder.Eventf(curIng, corev1.EventTypeNormal, "CREATE", fmt.Sprintf("Ingress %s/%s", curIng.Namespace, curIng.Name)) | ||
| } else if validOld && !validCur { | ||
| klog.Infof("removing ingress %v based on annotation %v", curIng.Name, class.IngressKey) | ||
| // FIXME: this does not actually delete the Ingress resource. | ||
| // The existing one will be updated with latest changes and invalid ingress.class will be missed. | ||
| recorder.Eventf(curIng, corev1.EventTypeNormal, "DELETE", fmt.Sprintf("Ingress %s/%s", curIng.Namespace, curIng.Name)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@aledbf is this an intended behaviour of the controller to not ignore an ingress after it changes its class to something that's not handled by ingress-nginx?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, this is a bug introduced when I added a copy of the Ingress with annotations. We should remove the ingress from the local store (store.listers.IngressWithAnnotation.Delete(oldIng))
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alright, we will fix it in a subsequent PR then.
| klog.Infof("ignoring update for catch-all ingress %v/%v because of --disable-catch-all", curIng.Namespace, curIng.Name) | ||
| // FIXME: this does not actually delete the Ingress resource. | ||
| // The existing one will be updated with latest changes. | ||
| recorder.Eventf(curIng, corev1.EventTypeNormal, "DELETE", fmt.Sprintf("Ingress %s/%s", curIng.Namespace, curIng.Name)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are you not deleting ingress here? To keep it consistent with the valid class behaviour? If so then why are you recording DELETE event rather than UPDATE?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This has the same behavior has the valid class check. It records a DELETE event, but don't actually delete it.
I wanted more feedback on this issue before trying any fix here.
I've quickly tested to call the DeleteFunc handler when needed here and it works as expected. But I'm not 100% sure this is the solution.
Also, I think this should be fixed in a 2nd PR (that can be merge before this one).
| f.WaitForNginxServer("_", func(cfg string) bool { | ||
| return strings.Contains(cfg, `set $ingress_name ""`) && | ||
| strings.Contains(cfg, `set $proxy_upstream_name "upstream-default-backend"`) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While this works, it leaks internals of Nginx configuration to the test. I know we do it in another e2e tests, but here we can avoid this and test the functionality by sending a request and asserting that the response is 404.
Similarly instead of https://github.com/kubernetes/ingress-nginx/pull/3586/files#diff-cb7b9b28ba2a89db95d178caee979d06R57 you can send a request and assert 200 response code.
|
/lgtm In the subsequent PR we should also consider testing this case https://github.com/kubernetes/ingress-nginx/pull/3586/files#diff-ece58b3bebec02a6d3173c8d8099d298R348. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: aledbf, ElvinEfendi, wayt 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 |
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds the possibility to disable
catch-allIngress.It's turned off by default.
When turned on, all Ingress that defines a
.spec.backendwill be ignored on the store level.Which issue this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close that issue when PR gets merged): fixes #Special notes for your reviewer:
A bug with Ingress update handler has been found while working on this.
I did not fix it here as it's unrelated.