Removing "None" as option for Route Namespaces #3748
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
| // | ||
| // +optional | ||
| // +kubebuilder:default=None | ||
| // +kubebuilder:validation:Enum=All;Selector;Same;None |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FWIW I still don't think we need None since it can be represented as not setting allowedListeners. We don't really need 2 ways to represent the same thing?
Note we do not have a default at the GatewaySpec level, only at the AllowedListeners level
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO it's still useful to intentionally opt-out of functionality like this instead of relying on the absence of config. On that note, there may be a point in the future where a Gateway wants to only have Listeners attached to it, and not any direct Route attachment. I don't think that was @dprotaso's goal to begin with, but if it was, we could have separate experimental validation that allowed AllowedRoutes to be set to None as well. In any case, this PR means that None is still an experimental channel feature, and we can still change if needed before this gets to GA.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dprotaso, howardjohn, robscott 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 |
4 participants
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
Nonewas accidentally added as an option for Route Namespaces as part of the ListenerSet work. This fixes that.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #3743
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
/cc @howardjohn @dprotaso