conformance: initial UDPRoute test

[cnvergence]

What type of PR is this?

/kind test
/area conformance

What this PR does / why we need it:

• initial conformance tests for UDPRoute
• dedup code for Route Handler

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #1792

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @cnvergence. 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 /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

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/test-infra repository.

[shaneutt]

Hey @cnvergence thanks for adding this! Out of curiosity, what implementation are you adding this on the behalf of?

Also: not a big problem in this instance, but just note that you did create a PR intended to resolve an issue that was already assigned. In the future please comment on the issue your interest in working on it prior to starting work as this helps us to organize better and reduce overlap where multiple people are working on the same thing.

[cnvergence]

Hey @shaneutt
Ah, sorry, I did not see it was assigned.
I was going to create a new issue for this and propose UDPRoute conformance test suite, but found the older issue that I linked here.
It's coming from Envoy Gateway implementation: envoyproxy/gateway#2011

[shaneutt]

Hey @shaneutt Ah, sorry, I did not see it was assigned. I was going to create a new issue for this and propose UDPRoute conformance test suite, but found the older issue that I linked here. It's coming from Envoy Gateway implementation: envoyproxy/gateway#2011

Yeah no worries! Just something to think about in the future. I have some active work on this within https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/blixt, which you and I might need to coordinate on a little bit (after the holidays). But in any case, very much appreciate your interest and willingness to jump on this, and thanks for linking the relevant envoy gateway issue that's good context.

[cnvergence]

@shaneutt sounds good to me

[arkodg]

thanks @cnvergence, this looks good, can you confirm if this test passes on any implementation ?
@shaneutt is there anything specific in this PR you'd like changed ?

[mlavacca]

Thank you for your PR, @cnvergence!

[cnvergence]

thanks @mlavacca, @arkodg, I have applied some improvements after the review
I will now check on passing those tests on different implementations

[cnvergence]

So far I tested it on:

• envoy-gateway
• kong-ingress-controller

go test  -v ./conformance -run TestConformance -args -supported-features=UDPRoute
=== RUN   TestConformance
    conformance_test.go:60: Running conformance tests with gateway-conformance GatewayClass
         cleanup: true
         debug: false
         enable all features: false 
         supported features: [UDPRoute]
         exempt features: []
    suite.go:168: Test Setup: Ensuring GatewayClass has been accepted
    suite.go:174: Test Setup: Applying base manifests
    apply.go:272: Creating gateway-conformance-infra Namespace
    apply.go:272: Creating same-namespace Gateway
    apply.go:272: Creating same-namespace-with-https-listener Gateway
    apply.go:272: Creating all-namespaces Gateway
    apply.go:272: Creating backend-namespaces Gateway
    apply.go:272: Creating infra-backend-v1 Service
    apply.go:272: Creating infra-backend-v1 Deployment
    apply.go:272: Creating infra-backend-v2 Service
    apply.go:272: Creating infra-backend-v2 Deployment
    apply.go:272: Creating infra-backend-v3 Service
    apply.go:272: Creating infra-backend-v3 Deployment
    apply.go:272: Creating tls-backend Service
    apply.go:272: Creating tls-backend Deployment
    apply.go:272: Creating gateway-conformance-app-backend Namespace
    apply.go:272: Creating tls-backend Service
    apply.go:272: Creating tls-backend Deployment
    apply.go:272: Creating app-backend-v1 Service
    apply.go:272: Creating app-backend-v1 Deployment
    apply.go:272: Creating app-backend-v2 Service
    apply.go:272: Creating app-backend-v2 Deployment
    apply.go:272: Creating gateway-conformance-web-backend Namespace
    apply.go:272: Creating web-backend Service
    apply.go:272: Creating web-backend Deployment
    apply.go:272: Creating gateway-conformance-udp Namespace
    apply.go:272: Creating coredns Service
    apply.go:272: Creating coredns Deployment
    apply.go:272: Creating coredns ConfigMap
    apply.go:272: Creating udp-gateway Gateway
    suite.go:177: Test Setup: Applying programmatic resources
    apply.go:223: Creating certificate 
    apply.go:223: Creating tls-validity-checks-certificate 
    apply.go:223: Creating tls-passthrough-checks-certificate 
    apply.go:223: Creating tls-passthrough-checks-certificate 
=== RUN   TestConformance/UDPRoute
    suite.go:250: Applying tests/udproute-simple.yaml
    apply.go:272: Creating udp-coredns UDPRoute
=== RUN   TestConformance/UDPRoute/Simple_UDP_request_matching_UDPRoute_should_reach_coredns_backend
    helpers.go:776: Route gateway-conformance-udp/udp-coredns expected 1 Parents got 0
    helpers.go:776: Conditions matched expectations
    helpers.go:776: Route gateway-conformance-udp/udp-coredns Parents matched expectations
    udproute-simple.go:56: performing DNS query foo.bar.com. on 172.18.255.200:5300
=== NAME  TestConformance/UDPRoute
    apply.go:280: Deleting udp-coredns UDPRoute
    --- PASS: TestConformance/UDPRoute (2.06s)
        --- PASS: TestConformance/UDPRoute/Simple_UDP_request_matching_UDPRoute_should_reach_coredns_backend (2.03s)
PASS

[arkodg]

/approve
thanks !

[cnvergence]

hey @shaneutt, combing back to this, would like to coordinate with you :)

[shaneutt]

Sounds good, what did you have in mind? Where are things at currently?

[cnvergence]

Refactored the code a bit as per the review and manually tested out this simple UDP scenario on two implementations that support UDPRoute: kong-ingress-gateway and envoy-gateway.

Would like to ask about what's left to move this PR.

Yeah no worries! Just something to think about in the future. I have some active work on this within https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/blixt, which you and I might need to coordinate on a little bit (after the holidays). But in any case, very much appreciate your interest and willingness to jump on this, and thanks for linking the relevant envoy gateway issue that's good context.

[shaneutt]

/approve

/cc @robscott @youngnick for lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

@shaneutt: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: for, lgtm.

Note that only kubernetes-sigs members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

/approve

/cc @robscott @youngnick for lgtm

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/test-infra repository.

[cnvergence]

rebased PR, PTAL again
@shaneutt @robscott

[shaneutt]

Thanks for adding this, let's move on this!

/approve
/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: arkodg, aryan9600, cnvergence, shaneutt

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:

• OWNERS [shaneutt]

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