Skip to content

GEP-1713 Revisions #3744

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jun 11, 2025
Merged

GEP-1713 Revisions #3744

merged 11 commits into from
Jun 11, 2025

Conversation

dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor

  • formatting
  • clarify optional port semantics
  • clarify listener name semantics
  • Clarify Route attachment without sectionName, re-order policy attachment section, include a section about referencegrants

What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
/kind gep

What this PR does / why we need it:

As folks are implementing ListenerSets some clarifying questions came up and I thought it'd be good to revise the GEP with the answers.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

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/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. kind/gep PRs related to Gateway Enhancement Proposal(GEP) cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Apr 13, 2025
@dprotaso
clarify attachment/grants semantics
c1eac08 
- Route attachment without sectionName
- re-order policy attachment section
- include a section about ReferenceGrants
@dprotaso dprotaso force-pushed the gep-1713-revisions branch from daaa5f1 to c1eac08 Compare April 13, 2025 19:34
@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @howardjohn

@dprotaso
set proper min/max value for listenerentry.port
4835e67 
We had to drop the use of the PortNumber type because of
limitations with overriding min max using kubebuilder
annotations
dprotaso
dprotaso commented Apr 14, 2025
View reviewed changes
youngnick
youngnick reviewed Apr 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
youngnick
youngnick reviewed Apr 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
youngnick
youngnick reviewed Apr 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
@youngnick
Copy link
Contributor

Couple of small wording things, but aside from that, the GEP changes look good to me.

The point about non-distinct name fields probably needs to be in the XListenerSet docstrings somewhere (since the specification is currently only in the .go files).

@dprotaso dprotaso force-pushed the gep-1713-revisions branch from 64832c3 to b1e12f7 Compare April 17, 2025 05:16
@dprotaso dprotaso force-pushed the gep-1713-revisions branch from b1e12f7 to 8d6183c Compare April 17, 2025 05:16
@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

I pulled the Port API changes into a separate PR - #3750

@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

dprotaso commented May 6, 2025

bump

youngnick
youngnick reviewed May 9, 2025
View reviewed changes
@youngnick
Copy link
Contributor

This LGTM now, so I'll approve.

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 9, 2025
@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

dprotaso commented May 9, 2025

@youngnick who should drop the hold?

@youngnick
Copy link
Contributor

We need someone else to lgtm and drop the hold here.

@robscott @mlavacca @shaneutt ?

robscott
robscott reviewed May 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@robscott robscott left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @dprotaso!

robscott
robscott reviewed May 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dprotaso, youngnick

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jun 9, 2025
@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

job timed out

/test pull-gateway-api-verify

@robscott
Copy link
Member

Thanks @dprotaso!

I think this could warrant a v1.3.1 if we make one. (cc @shaneutt)

/lgtm
/cherry-pick release-1.3

@k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@robscott: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-1.3 in a new PR and assign it to you.

In response to this:

Thanks @dprotaso!

I think this could warrant a v1.3.1 if we make one. (cc @shaneutt)

/lgtm
/cherry-pick release-1.3

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 11, 2025
@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

/hold cancel

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 11, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 8185c7d into kubernetes-sigs:main Jun 11, 2025
13 checks passed
@dprotaso dprotaso deleted the gep-1713-revisions branch June 11, 2025 22:19
@k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@robscott: cannot checkout release-1.3: error checking out "release-1.3": exit status 1 error: pathspec 'release-1.3' did not match any file(s) known to git

In response to this:

Thanks @dprotaso!

I think this could warrant a v1.3.1 if we make one. (cc @shaneutt)

/lgtm
/cherry-pick release-1.3

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.

@shaneutt
Copy link
Member

I see value in getting this out in v1.3.1 if we have some implementations that are eager to start implementing immediately.

@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

oh there isn't a release-1.3 branch yet - can someone make one and I'll kick off the cherry-pick

cc @howardjohn who is implementing it in Istio - the changes here were feedback from him

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@robscott robscott robscott left review comments

@youngnick youngnick youngnick left review comments

@kflynn kflynn Awaiting requested review from kflynn

@mikemorris mikemorris Awaiting requested review from mikemorris

Assignees

@robscott robscott

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. kind/gep PRs related to Gateway Enhancement Proposal(GEP) lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. 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
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@dprotaso @youngnick @k8s-ci-robot @robscott @k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot @shaneutt