-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
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
[ENHANCEMENT] Resolve ambiguity in APIs around matching traffic #177
Comments
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
Is your enhancement request related to a problem? Please describe.
The match criteria in the APIs are a bit ambiguous. For e.g., consider the AdminNetworkPolicyIngressRule
network-policy-api/apis/v1alpha1/adminnetworkpolicy_types.go
Line 105 in f6c1cf2
Describe the solution you'd like
Similar to the
Action
field, I would like to see aMatches
field instead, which can be extended in the future to define match semantics (and, or, etc.). This would make the match criteria explicit instead of leaving the interpretation to the user based on field documentation.Describe alternatives you've considered
Alternative would be to improve the documentation to describe the fields that are responsible for the match criteria and the associated match semantics.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: