-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Feature Request: Support Websockets #19
Comments
Hi, Thanks for this #20 we will be busy testing it over the course of this week. I do have a qq What was the logic around the GRPC being on non standard http ports ? IE not tcp/80, tcp/443 Sorry just curious. |
Hi @rusenask, I would like to thank you for the very quick response to this. It does seem to have resolved the issue for us.
I have a couple of points...
|
Mostly due to historical reasons, however we will probably switch to 443 for grpc too as the support has been available for quite some time on GCP GKE ingress and I haven't seen any issues with it. |
Hi, the new chart has not been released yet. I will try to get the multiarch build on gh actions working later today :) |
OK. If you are continuing to look, I have a trivial issue, which I can raise another ticket for it you would like.... apiVersion: forward.webhookrelay.com/v1
kind: WebhookRelayForward
metadata:
name: example-forward
spec:
resources:
limits:
cpu: 100m
memory: 4Gi
requests:
cpu: 100m
memory: 0.5Gi Resource requests and limits are expressed in the CRD, but never make it into the deployment and pod. I could raise another request if you would like for this. |
should be fixed both in the newest chart + image |
Hi. I have rolled out this new version, it looks improved. I can see that the resource limits have been applied to the forwarder deployment. Everything looks great. |
Support the
WEBSOCKET_TRANSPORT=true
environment variable, documented here https://docs.webhookrelay.com/installation-options/containerized/dockerThis is to cover use cases where tcp/8080 (default GRPC port) is not allowed out of the client network
This lack of functionality is currently stopping us from deploying the solution.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: