[WIP] conformance: require that GatewayClass controller name is immutable #1534
Conversation
Relates to kubernetes-sigs#1514 This is a proof-of-concept conformance test that checks for the validation behavior provided by the admission webhook. In this case we're just checking that an update to a GatewayClass controller name is rejected. We use a temporary GatewayClass rather than the one specified by the --gateway-class, to avoid messing up installations that do allow this update through. This does raise an interesting question though - isn't it strange that we're saying an implementation is required to validate objects that it should otherwise ignore? In this case, we would would otherwise say an implementation should ingore this object because it doesn't recognize the controller name. Failure looks like this: ``` === RUN TestConformance/GatewayClassAdmissionValidation/GatewayClass_controllerName_is_immutable gatewayclass-admission-validation.go:62: Error Trace: gatewayclass-admission-validation.go:62 Error: Should be in error chain: expected: %!q(**errors.StatusError=0xc000014008) in chain: Test: TestConformance/GatewayClassAdmissionValidation/GatewayClass_controllerName_is_immutable Messages: updating gatewayclass-immutable GatewayClass.Spec.ControllerName should not be permitted ```
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: markmc 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/M
|
This is marked as a WIP, so I'm converting it to draft for organizational reasons. If this is now ready for review, please convert it back from draft and remove the WIP and we'll take a look, thank you! 🖖 |
|
Hey @markmc, it's been a while since we heard back from you on this one. Do you still have time for this one? Do you need any help? |
Relates to #1514
This is a proof-of-concept conformance test that checks for the validation behavior provided by the admission webhook. In this case we're just checking that an update to a GatewayClass controller name is rejected.
We use a temporary GatewayClass rather than the one specified by the --gateway-class, to avoid messing up installations that do allow this update through.
This does raise an interesting question though - isn't it strange that we're saying an implementation is required to validate objects that it should otherwise ignore? In this case, we would would otherwise say an implementation should ingore this object because it doesn't recognize the controller name.
Failure looks like this: