-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 621
Add conformance test for combination of extended match types with core types #1984
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
Add conformance test for combination of extended match types with core types #1984
Conversation
|
Hi @gauravkghildiyal. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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. |
|
/area conformance |
796f443 to
e2dcaee
Compare
sunjayBhatia
left a comment
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.
test passes w/ Contour main 👍🏽
|
/ok-to-test |
e2dcaee to
656efc4
Compare
arkodg
left a comment
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.
LGTM thanks !
c539210 to
62dd0f1
Compare
robscott
left a comment
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.
Thanks @gauravkghildiyal! I've got a couple non-blocking comments that don't need to block this PR, but could make for good follow ups here or in a future PR.
/approve
62dd0f1 to
fda8a67
Compare
gauravkghildiyal
left a comment
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.
Thanks for the review Rob!
fda8a67 to
1abb730
Compare
1abb730 to
9d470b4
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: arkodg, gauravkghildiyal, robscott, sunjayBhatia 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 |
|
Thanks @gauravkghildiyal! /lgtm |
|
@robscott: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-0.7 in a new PR and assign it to you. 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
@robscott: new pull request created: #2032 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
| Namespace: ns, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| Request: http.Request{Headers: map[string]string{"version": "four"}, Path: "/?animal=hydra"}, |
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 this test case added after my review doesn't work with Contour
this assumes header matching gets precedence over method matching, but I'm not sure that is expressed anywhere explicitly in the spec, see #1993
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.
Yes that was how I interpreted it -- given method matching is not in the list (and the only thing not in the list), it must have the least priority.
I'm sorry for causing any issues. I've sent #2052 as a temporary solution to help unblock (if this is the path we wish to take)
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.
thanks! yeah not a super strong opinion on where it lands in terms of priority, but should probably be something explicitly debated/documented 👍🏽
/kind test
/area conformance
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Add conformance test for combination of extended match types with core types
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1962
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: