Skip to content
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

Add DomainName field to AdminNetworkPolicyEgressPeer #233

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rahulkjoshi
Copy link
Contributor

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jun 4, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rahulkjoshi
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign danwinship for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @rahulkjoshi. 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-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jun 4, 2024
Copy link

netlify bot commented Jun 4, 2024

Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-network-policy-api ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 153a8b8
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-network-policy-api/deploys/665f9c86546e0a0008d22805
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-233--kubernetes-sigs-network-policy-api.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@@ -196,6 +196,21 @@ type AdminNetworkPolicyEgressPeer struct {
// +kubebuilder:validation:MinItems=1
// +kubebuilder:validation:MaxItems=25
Networks []CIDR `json:"networks,omitempty"`

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@astoycos @npinaeva @tssurya

Our NPEP says we only support ANP, not BANP. Does that mean we should create two different EgressPeer types for ANP and BANP? 😢

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we'll have to unfortunately :/ @tssurya can chime in if there's another way since she implemented it in the first place

I dont think it's too big of a deal though, we would just move the EgressPeer typedef out of shared_types.go

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@rahulkjoshi You should be good to go ahead and make this change :)

Copy link
Member

@astoycos astoycos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Small PR, I like it!! Almost there :)

// "wikipedia.org" do not.
//
// +kubebuilder:validation:Pattern=`^(\*\.)?([a-zA-z0-9]([-a-zA-Z0-9_]*[a-zA-Z0-9])?\.)+[a-zA-z0-9]([-a-zA-Z0-9_]*[a-zA-Z0-9])?\.?$`
type DomainName string
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: Newline

// <network-policy-api:experimental>
// +optional
// +listType=set
// +kubebuilder:validation:MinItems=1
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need a max items here?

@@ -196,6 +196,21 @@ type AdminNetworkPolicyEgressPeer struct {
// +kubebuilder:validation:MinItems=1
// +kubebuilder:validation:MaxItems=25
Networks []CIDR `json:"networks,omitempty"`

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we'll have to unfortunately :/ @tssurya can chime in if there's another way since she implemented it in the first place

I dont think it's too big of a deal though, we would just move the EgressPeer typedef out of shared_types.go

@astoycos astoycos mentioned this pull request Jun 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants