Skip to content
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

conformance: Gateway Infrastructure Metadata #2845

Closed

Conversation

dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor

@dprotaso dprotaso commented Mar 5, 2024

What type of PR is this?

/kind test
/area conformance

What this PR does / why we need it:
Include a conformance test and create a feature for this experimental functionality

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
N/A

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/test area/conformance labels Mar 5, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Mar 5, 2024
@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

dprotaso commented Mar 5, 2024

/assign @howardjohn

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Mar 5, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 5, 2024
Description: "A Gateway should accept infrastructure metadata",
Features: []suite.SupportedFeature{
suite.SupportGateway,
suite.SupportGatewayInfrastructureMetadata,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't really know how you do more than this, but it seems like this isn't really testing much. If an implementation takes no action, they'll support this. The only thing that would fail this test is if an implementation went out of their way to mark this config as rejected?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If an implementation takes no action, they'll support this. The only thing that would fail this test is if an implementation went out of their way to mark this config as rejected?

Or there's some other machinery that rejects the creation of this Gateway.

The second aspect is there is no way currently for a GatewayClass to signal that they support this feature.

@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

dprotaso commented Mar 7, 2024

/assign @arkodg @mlavacca @sunjayBhatia # approvers
/cc @LiorLieberman @michaelbeaumont @Xunzhuo # reviewers

@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

dprotaso commented Mar 7, 2024

apologies - unsure why prow didn't assign - trying again without the # comment

/assign @arkodg @mlavacca @sunjayBhatia
/cc @LiorLieberman @michaelbeaumont

@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

dprotaso commented Apr 1, 2024

Conformance reviewers/approvers - can I get review please @arkodg @mlavacca @sunjayBhatia @michaelbeaumont @LiorLieberman @Xunzhuo

Namespace: "gateway-conformance-infra",
}

conditions := []metav1.Condition{
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

imo I dont know this test is very useful, we ideally need a way to retrieve the metatdata from the data plane but since its unique, we are add a conformance test for it

Copy link
Contributor Author

@dprotaso dprotaso Apr 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

way to retrieve the metatdata from the data plane

That's implementation specific.

The test really just asserts that we're able to set this property on the infrastructure stanza and it's accepted by the implementation - nothing else.

Also I think it's important to have a Feature enum so end users know they can use this feature and it's surfaced on the GatewayClass

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

so the real use case is to surface the feature in the GatewayClass :) ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@dprotaso dprotaso Apr 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's part of it.

Like as an end-user I want to know if a class supports this feature. Likewise if an implementation advertises that then I expect I can set these attributes and the gateway is accepted and programmed. (which this test is doing)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure about this one, it's not necessarily wrong, just also not clear that it provides much value. Just being able to set a value doesn't really mean it's not supported, it may just mean the Gateway implementation hasn't gone out of it's way to block this from being set. I know we don't really have strong guidelines for what does or doesn't fit as a conformance test, but this feels like it's on the edge, and I'd lean to say that it doesn't really provide sufficient value.

It seems conceptually similar to confirming that an implementation supports setting TLS options to some arbitrary value, I'm not sure how useful a test like this is without also confirming the desired result.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm fine with dropping this conformance tests - I guess I'm trying to answer the question

How do I know which implementations support setting this property and won't fail.

Is the conformance report a good place for that?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe PR'ing the feature string makes sense and then we enable report generation to include additional features that don't have tests?

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Apr 17, 2024
Include a conformance test and create a feature for this
experimental functionality
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dprotaso, howardjohn
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign youngnick for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Apr 18, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 18, 2024
Copy link
Member

@mlavacca mlavacca left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1 on the doubts already posed by @robscott and @arkodg. I do not see this test very useful, and also I think we should not include it just for the sake of having the feature listed in the GatewayClass status, which is a matter of a completely different GEP and feature, still experimental. On the other hand, I do not see a way to improve the test to increase its meaningfulness, as the feature relies very much on the implementation details.

@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sounds good everyone

@dprotaso dprotaso closed this May 23, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/conformance cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/test release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants