conformance: add test for optional address value #3689
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: EyalPazz The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Hi @EyalPazz. 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. |
|
/ok-to-test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for this PR, @EyalPazz.
I am having hard time to figure out the context of this test and what we want to achieve here. There is no description in the PR and in the linked issue either. Do you mind adding context about what we are testing and what's the expected behavior?
81191c7 to
748a98b
Compare
|
Yea I have tested this against istio, obviously it isn't going through because it isn't implementing the feature, but when i remove the feature requirement it fails with |
|
|
||
| // This is being done in order to support the injection of implementation-specific address types | ||
| // into the test suite | ||
| if len(gwspec.Addresses) > 0 && *gwspec.Addresses[0].Type == "PLACEHOLDER_ADDRESS_TYPE" { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of hardcoding the PLACEHOLDER index to 0, can we look up for it? This would make this code future-proof and more robust.
| err := s.Client.Get(ctx, gwNN, currentGW) | ||
| require.NoError(t, err, "error getting Gateway: %v", err) | ||
| t.Logf("verifying that the Gateway %s/%s is accepted", gwNN.Namespace, gwNN.Name) | ||
| kubernetes.GatewayMustHaveCondition(t, s.Client, s.TimeoutConfig, gwNN, metav1.Condition{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The spec says
// When a value is unspecified, an implementation SHOULD automatically
// assign an address matching the requested type if possible.
Shouldn't we check that the address gets properly assigned by checking GatewayStatusAddress?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it will produce the same results imo but good idea! will do
| if address.Type != nil && (*address.Type == gatewayv1.IPAddressType || *address.Type == v1alpha2.HostnameAddressType) { | ||
| if address.Type != nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mlavacca regarding this line, do you think it's an OK change? i didn't really understand why it was like at first place
33b8203 to
ecc2dd8
Compare
/kind test
/area conformance
Fixes #3687