-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 632
fix: fix validation and wording when making gateway spec addresses value optional #4084
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
fix: fix validation and wording when making gateway spec addresses value optional #4084
Conversation
|
Hi @bjee19. 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. |
|
Manually tested ability to create a gateway with optional value field for both IPAddress and Hostname. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: bjee19, 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 |
|
Thanks for the catch @bjee19 🖖
Given that we haven't cut our first RC yet, and this is about making good on a change we had intended to introduce in /milestone v1.4.0 |
|
/retest |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
When Gateway.Spec.Addresses.Value became optional in this PR, CEL validation was not updated, meaning you can't create a gateway with an addresses entry with a unspecified value. Also fixed up some wording in related areas.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes an issue introduced in #3612
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: