-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 597
TLSRoute: Set MaxItems=1 for rules[] in v1alpha3 #3971
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
TLSRoute: Set MaxItems=1 for rules[] in v1alpha3 #3971
Conversation
Hi @rostislavbobo. 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-sigs/prow repository. |
// +kubebuilder:validation:MaxItems=1 | ||
// <gateway:experimental:validation:XValidation:message="Rule name must be unique within the route",rule="self.all(l1, !has(l1.name) || self.exists_one(l2, has(l2.name) && l1.name == l2.name))"> | ||
Rules []v1alpha2.TLSRouteRule `json:"rules"` | ||
Rules []v1alpha2.TLSRouteRule `json:"rules,omitempty"` |
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.
Using omitempty
on required fields is the most recent API conventions guidance as it prevents mess in the marshalled API and makes the error messages for structured and unstructured clients consistent (field is required for both, instead of field is required for one, and you didn't provide 1 item for the other)
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.
Can you link the guidance doc 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.
More discussion in #3905 (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
would have been ideal if this was split in 2 PRs (non blocking comment)
Thanks @rostislavbobo! Will leave final LGTM for someone else. /cc @arkodg @youngnick |
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.
/approve
thanks
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: arkodg, robscott, rostislavbobo 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 |
/lgtm |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR sets
TLSRoute.rules[]
MaxItems
to 1. Currently,TLSRouteRule
only hasbackendRefs
and no matches. Supporting more than oneTLSRouteRule
does NOT make much sense at this moment.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #3970
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: