[experimental] Move admission webhook into skipper for better validation #2478
Conversation
| @@ -273,6 +274,12 @@ type Config struct { | |||
|
|
|||
| LuaModules *listFlag `yaml:"lua-modules"` | |||
| LuaSources *listFlag `yaml:"lua-sources"` | |||
|
|
|||
| // admission webhook | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess you want to rename it to validation instead of admission.
That's at least what we intend to do even if it runs at admission. https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/admission-controllers/#validatingadmissionwebhook
MustafaSaber
force-pushed
the
admission-webhook-from-skipper
branch
from
26798e3
to
98ae7de
Compare
MustafaSaber
force-pushed
the
admission-webhook-from-skipper
branch
from
98ae7de
to
fb588a7
Compare
MustafaSaber
added
the
architectural
Signed-off-by: Mustafa Abdelrahman <mustafa.abdelrahman@zalando.de>
MustafaSaber
force-pushed
the
admission-webhook-from-skipper
branch
from
fb588a7
to
01670e2
Compare
| @@ -1959,6 +1976,16 @@ func run(o Options, sig chan os.Signal, idleConnsCH chan struct{}) error { | |||
| routing := routing.New(ro) | |||
| defer routing.Close() | |||
|
|
|||
| if o.EnableValidationWebhook { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here I see the code starting some alternative mode of skipper binary. So I would expect something like routesrv.Run() call nearby. Could you please kindly show me where it is? Is it possible to put it near this line of code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the next line you can see 'webhook.Run()'
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I see webhook.Run(), but I would expect to see routesrv.Run() too. Both of them, basically.
From my side it makes some sense, because both "webhook" and "routesrv" are some "custom mode" of running skipper binary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why should they run together? Every mode is a separate one and everyone run it's own required place and own required options
|
I think it's better to have a separate component as we have today. |
szuecs
added
do-not-merge
breaking change
Efforts to solve this #1618