Basic --validate flag: Checks that NodePort is the same in each cluster. #148

G-Harmon · 2018-03-23T21:18:32Z

For every Backend/Service in the Ingress, validates that each cluster
is using the same port number for its NodePort.

This covers some of the work needed for #53.

This change is

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-26T18:17:35Z

app/kubemci/cmd/create.go

@@ -95,6 +97,7 @@ func addCreateFlags(cmd *cobra.Command, options *CreateOptions) error {
 	// TODO(nikhiljindal): Add a short flag "-p" if it seems useful.
 	cmd.Flags().StringVarP(&options.GCPProject, "gcp-project", "", options.GCPProject, "[optional] name of the gcp project. Is fetched using gcloud config get-value project if unset here")
 	cmd.Flags().BoolVarP(&options.ForceUpdate, "force", "f", options.ForceUpdate, "[optional] overwrite existing settings if they are different")
+	cmd.Flags().BoolVarP(&options.Validate, "validate", "", options.Validate, "[optional] Enable/disable some validation steps.")


Also explain what happens on enabling validation?
Like "Performs extra validation steps and throws an error before creating the load balancer"?

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-26T18:19:40Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

+func (l *LoadBalancerSyncer) ServicesNodePortsSame(clients map[string]kubeclient.Interface, ing *v1beta1.Ingress) error {
+	for _, rule := range ing.Spec.Rules {
+		if rule.HTTP == nil {
+			glog.Errorf("ignoring non http Ingress rule")


use fmt.Errorf or make it V(2).
Also print the rule?

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-26T18:19:54Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

+			continue
+		}
+		for _, path := range rule.HTTP.Paths {
+			glog.Infof("Validating path:%s", path.Path)


nit: Add a space after ":"

And same comment as above. make it fmt.Printf or make this V(2)? (making this V(2) seems better to me)

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-26T18:23:01Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

+		for _, path := range rule.HTTP.Paths {
+			glog.Infof("Validating path:%s", path.Path)
+			if err := l.NodePortSameInAllClusters(path.Backend, ing.Namespace); err != nil {
+				return fmt.Errorf("NodePort validation error for service '%s/%s': %s", ing.Namespace, path.Backend.ServiceName, err)


Start error message with small letter: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/CodeReviewComments#error-strings.

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-26T18:23:53Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

+
+		}
+	}
+	glog.Infof("Checking default backend's nodeports.")


nikhiljindal · 2018-03-26T18:42:35Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

@@ -105,14 +105,85 @@ func NewLoadBalancerSyncer(lbName string, clients map[string]kubeclient.Interfac
 	}, nil
 }

+// ServicesNodePortsSame checks that for each backend/service, the services are
+// all listening on the same NodePort.
+func (l *LoadBalancerSyncer) ServicesNodePortsSame(clients map[string]kubeclient.Interface, ing *v1beta1.Ingress) error {


Both this and the method below can be private? (Can remain private when moved to the validations package)

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-26T18:46:28Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer_test.go

+		//   1x GET-Service for path=/foo.
+		//   1x GET-Service for default backend.
+		// Start of setup (using a random cluster's client):
+		//   2x GET-Service.


umm why do we fetch it twice again? To determine the node port? We should reuse the nodeport computed during validation?

Not to be done in this PR. Feel free to add a TODO and/or file an issue.

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-26T18:47:52Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer_test.go

+		t.Fatalf("%s", err)
+	}
+	if err := lbc.CreateLoadBalancer(ing, true /*forceUpdate*/, true /*validate*/, clusters); err == nil {
+		t.Errorf("should've gotten an error")


Add more detail on what error should it have been

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-26T18:48:15Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer_test.go

+			}
+		}
+	}
+}


Add a line break

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-26T18:53:54Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

+		}
+		glog.Infof("Default backend's nodeports passed validation.")
+	} else {
+		return fmt.Errorf("Ingress Spec is missing default backend")


fwiw, This is what we use today: "unexpected: ing.spec.backend is nil. Multicluster ingress needs a user specified default backend". Seems more meaningful :)

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-26T19:01:02Z

Thanks for sending this @G-Harmon

Most comments are generic code style comments that apply all through:

Start error message with small letter: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/CodeReviewComments#error-strings
Use fmt.Infof instead of glog.Infof for user friendly error messages.
Consider converting some messages to V(2) or V(4)
camelCase over underscores for variable names: https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#mixed-caps

G-Harmon · 2018-03-28T22:49:54Z

Reviewed 5 of 5 files at r1, 5 of 5 files at r2, 2 of 2 files at r3.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 19 unresolved discussions, some commit checks failed.

app/kubemci/cmd/create.go, line 100 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Also explain what happens on enabling validation?
Like "Performs extra validation steps and throws an error before creating the load balancer"?

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 110 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Both this and the method below can be private? (Can remain private when moved to the validations package)

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 113 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

use fmt.Errorf or make it V(2).
Also print the rule?

Well, what I have here is just copied from ingToNodePort. Made them both Warningf(), seems unlikely to trigger?

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 117 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

nit: Add a space after ":"

And same comment as above. make it fmt.Printf or make this V(2)? (making this V(2) seems better to me)

added space. But I'm inclined to keep it in the default log file... Why do you suggest either promoting OR demoting?

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 119 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Start error message with small letter: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/CodeReviewComments#error-strings.

done.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 124 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

fmt.Errorf

I don't follow- this isn't returning an error here.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 128 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Also print the service name and namespace. Keep the error message consistent with non-default services?

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 129 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Append all the errors instead of returning on the first?

Done. (This required updating the unit test, since now more GETs are done and errors returned.)

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 133 at r1 (raw file):

unexpected: ing.spec.backend is nil. Multicluster ingress needs a user specified default backend
yea, I didn't put much thought into that message. I'll use the one you pasted.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 141 at r1 (raw file):

node_port := int64(-1)
sure.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 143 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

clientName over client_name: https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#mixed-caps

oops. fixed all the variables.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 144 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

"Checking cluster" is enough. Dont need client.

Also am wondering if we should make this V(2). Am on the fence. wdyt?

I think it's valuable to add the cluster name because it gives context to logs inside the loop, like for the "ServicePort" Log. But okay, we can make it a Vlog.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 161 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Also include the service name/namespace here

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 178 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

I assume we will add many more validations, so better to define a new validations package, rather than adding all that code here.
This can just call Validate(). That will improve readability and will also enable us to test the validations independently, without having to instantiate loadbalancersyncer.

okay, in addition to moving these 2 functions I added, I also had to move GetServiceNodePorts and getSvc.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 183 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Turn on validation by default as per: #53?

oh right. I set the default to 'true' in create.go.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 596 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

V(2)? Also print the service name.
And "using protocol" instead of "changing protocol".

done and done and done.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer_test.go, line 99 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

umm why do we fetch it twice again? To determine the node port? We should reuse the nodeport computed during validation?

Not to be done in this PR. Feel free to add a TODO and/or file an issue.

thanks for poking at this. I checked again, and it's not duplicating work. it's 1 time for the default backend and 1 time for the path rule.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer_test.go, line 222 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Add more detail on what error should it have been

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer_test.go, line 237 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Add a line break

Done.

Comments from Reviewable

nikhiljindal

Thanks for the refactoring.
Most of the comments are for using glog vs fmt.Printf because I wasnt clear the last time.
Feel free to ping for any questions.

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-29T05:17:40Z

app/kubemci/cmd/create.go

@@ -95,6 +99,7 @@ func addCreateFlags(cmd *cobra.Command, options *CreateOptions) error {
 	// TODO(nikhiljindal): Add a short flag "-p" if it seems useful.
 	cmd.Flags().StringVarP(&options.GCPProject, "gcp-project", "", options.GCPProject, "[optional] name of the gcp project. Is fetched using gcloud config get-value project if unset here")
 	cmd.Flags().BoolVarP(&options.ForceUpdate, "force", "f", options.ForceUpdate, "[optional] overwrite existing settings if they are different")
+	cmd.Flags().BoolVarP(&options.Validate, "validate", "", options.Validate, "[optional] If enabled, do some validation checks and potentially return an error, before creating load balancer")


Also say that it is true by default

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-29T05:18:08Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

 	client, cErr := getAnyClient(l.clients)
 	if cErr != nil {
 		// No point in continuing without a client.
 		return cErr
 	}
+
+	if validate {
+


remove line break

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-29T05:20:40Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

+	if validate {
+
+		if err := validations.Validate(l.clients, ing); err != nil {
+			glog.Errorf("Validation failed: %s", err)


Sorry should have been clearer before.

We do not use glog unless user explicitly uses verbose flag. Hence we dont use glog.Errorf directly. Using glog.V(2).Errorf is fine.
For messages that we want to print without verbosity, we use fmt.Printf().

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-29T05:20:58Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

+			glog.Errorf("Validation failed: %s", err)
+			return err
+		}
+		glog.Infof("Validation passed.")


same add V(2) or use Printf

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-29T05:22:10Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

@@ -549,6 +511,7 @@ func getAnyClient(clients map[string]kubeclient.Interface) (kubeclient.Interface
 	}
 	// Return the client for any cluster.
 	for k := range clients {
+		glog.Infof("getAnyClient: using client for cluster %s", k)


nikhiljindal · 2018-03-29T05:28:13Z

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go

+			continue
+		}
+		for _, path := range rule.HTTP.Paths {
+			glog.Infof("Validating path: %s", path.Path)


nikhiljindal · 2018-03-29T05:28:49Z

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go

+			}
+		}
+	}
+	glog.Infof("Checking default backend's nodeports.")


fwiw, printing "checking" is less meaningful than printing the result (failed/passed).
Right now, printing checking is at a lower verbosity than printing the result

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-29T05:29:52Z

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go

+
+	if ing.Spec.Backend != nil {
+		if err := nodePortSameInAllClusters(*ing.Spec.Backend, ing.Namespace, clients); err != nil {
+			glog.Errorf("nodePort validation error for default backend service '%s/%s': %s", *ing.Spec.Backend, ing.Namespace, err)


fmt.Printf.
Also keep this consistent with error for non backend service. I see we are not printing the error there

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-29T05:36:33Z

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go

+			return err
+		}
+		glog.Infof("cluster %s: Service's servicePort: %+v", clientName, servicePort)
+		// The NodePort is stored in 'Port' by getServiceNodePort.


This got renamed to NodePort, so the comment is not required now :)

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-29T05:38:59Z

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go

+			continue
+		}
+		if clusterNodePort != nodePort {
+			return fmt.Errorf("some instances of the '%s/%s' Service (e.g. in '%s') are on NodePort %v, but '%s' is on %v. All clusters must use same NodePort",


How about collecting all the clusters where nodePort is not same as firstCluster's node Port.
For ex: "Clusters A, B and C have a different node ports for service foo than cluster D. All are expected to have same ....".

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-29T05:40:22Z

Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 19 unresolved discussions, some commit checks failed.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 117 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, G-Harmon wrote…

added space. But I'm inclined to keep it in the default log file... Why do you suggest either promoting OR demoting?

Sorry should have been clearer before. Meant either use V() if you want to use glog. Or use fmt.Printf if you want to print by default

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 124 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, G-Harmon wrote…

I don't follow- this isn't returning an error here.

sorry meant fmt.Printf or use V() with glog

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 144 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, G-Harmon wrote…

I think it's valuable to add the cluster name because it gives context to logs inside the loop, like for the "ServicePort" Log. But okay, we can make it a Vlog.

Also remove "client" in "client/cluster"? We use that as variable name in code.
From users perspective, they are giving us a list of clusters

Comments from Reviewable

G-Harmon · 2018-03-29T18:18:53Z

Reviewed 6 of 6 files at r4, 4 of 4 files at r5.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 33 unresolved discussions.

app/kubemci/cmd/create.go, line 102 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Also say that it is true by default

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 144 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Also remove "client" in "client/cluster"? We use that as variable name in code.
From users perspective, they are giving us a list of clusters

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 116 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

remove line break

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 118 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Sorry should have been clearer before.

We do not use glog unless user explicitly uses verbose flag. Hence we dont use glog.Errorf directly. Using glog.V(2).Errorf is fine.
For messages that we want to print without verbosity, we use fmt.Printf().

I removed some other glog.Errorf's I found.
We chatted again offline...
I checked on the behavior: Only glog.Errorf() shows up on the console by default. (And not sure how to get any of these logs into the /tmp/kubemci.INFO log.)

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 514 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

use V(2)

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/kubeutils/utils.go, line 271 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Add a line break

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go, line 32 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Services - services

Done. (s/ServicesNodePortsSame/servicesNodePortsSame/, assuming that's what you meant)

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go, line 33 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

"on the same node port in all clusters"

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go, line 42 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

glog.V(4)

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go, line 48 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

V(4)

Done.

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go, line 52 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

fmt.Printf.
Also keep this consistent with error for non backend service. I see we are not printing the error there

changed them to both be fmt.Errorf (and not print)

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go, line 76 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

This got renamed to NodePort, so the comment is not required now :)

nice!

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go, line 85 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

How about collecting all the clusters where nodePort is not same as firstCluster's node Port.
For ex: "Clusters A, B and C have a different node ports for service foo than cluster D. All are expected to have same ....".

discussed offline. This returns an error at the first mismatch. I added a TODO at the top of this loop for improving it, if we ever get a request for it.

Comments from Reviewable

G-Harmon · 2018-03-29T21:56:04Z

/test pull-kubernetes-multicluster-ingress-test

G-Harmon · 2018-03-29T22:27:39Z

I rebased my patch, and that should fix the test failure we were seeing.

nikhiljindal

Thanks for the fixes @G-Harmon
Looks great mostly.
Few minor comments mostly about printing info/debug messages

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-30T05:43:42Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

+
+	if validate {
+		if err := validations.Validate(l.clients, ing); err != nil {
+			fmt.Println("error: validation failed:", err)


This will result in printing the error twice? The caller also prints the error

good catch. I often forget/don't worry about errors being printed multiple times. I fixed up 2 other spots where we were printing it extra.

Great! Thanks for fixing those other places as well :)

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-30T05:46:48Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

 		if err != nil {
-			glog.Errorf("%v", err)
+			fmt.Println("error getting service nodeport:", err, "Ignoring.")


Add ". " before ignoring as you do for the error below?

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-30T05:48:50Z

app/kubemci/pkg/kubeutils/utils.go

+
+	proto := annotations.ProtocolHTTP
+	if protoStr, exists := appProtocols[port.Name]; exists {
+		glog.V(2).Infof("service %s/%s: using protocol to %q", namespace, be.ServiceName, protoStr)


nit: Also add port name or number?

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-30T05:52:54Z

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go

+			}
+		}
+	}
+	glog.Infof("Checking default backend's nodeports.")


fwiw, printing "checking" is less meaningful than printing the result (failed/passed).
Right now, printing checking is at a lower verbosity than printing the result

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-30T05:54:17Z

app/kubemci/pkg/validations/validations.go

+
+		servicePort, err := kubeutils.GetServiceNodePort(backend, namespace, client)
+		if err != nil {
+			glog.Errorf("Could not get service NodePort in cluster %s: %s", clientName, err)


as discussed add V() or change to fmt.Printf for glog.Errorf() (Infof and Warningf are fine)

For every Backend/Service in the Ingress, validates that each cluster is using the same port number for its NodePort. Still todo: check that the server version is at least 1.8.1.

G-Harmon

validations,go:
-I rationalized the V() levels a bit.
-I changed the glog.Errorf to return fmt.Errorf.

G-Harmon · 2018-03-30T14:29:17Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

+
+	if validate {
+		if err := validations.Validate(l.clients, ing); err != nil {
+			fmt.Println("error: validation failed:", err)


good catch. I often forget/don't worry about errors being printed multiple times. I fixed up 2 other spots where we were printing it extra.

G-Harmon · 2018-03-30T14:29:50Z

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go

 		if err != nil {
-			glog.Errorf("%v", err)
+			fmt.Println("error getting service nodeport:", err, "Ignoring.")


G-Harmon · 2018-03-30T14:39:35Z

app/kubemci/pkg/kubeutils/utils.go

+
+	proto := annotations.ProtocolHTTP
+	if protoStr, exists := appProtocols[port.Name]; exists {
+		glog.V(2).Infof("service %s/%s: using protocol to %q", namespace, be.ServiceName, protoStr)


G-Harmon · 2018-03-30T14:41:11Z

app/kubemci/pkg/kubeutils/utils.go

+	}
+	glog.Infof("Found ServicePort: %+v", p)
+	return p, nil
+}


done. (go fmt enforces 1 newline between functions, it appears. I put the newline before the brace.)

nikhiljindal · 2018-03-30T19:48:02Z

Thanks for all the fixes @G-Harmon
/lgtm

G-Harmon requested a review from nikhiljindal March 23, 2018 21:45

nikhiljindal reviewed Mar 26, 2018

View reviewed changes

G-Harmon force-pushed the validate branch 2 times, most recently from b9a66de to 8ec4c78 Compare March 28, 2018 22:47

nikhiljindal reviewed Mar 29, 2018

View reviewed changes

nikhiljindal self-assigned this Mar 29, 2018

G-Harmon force-pushed the validate branch 2 times, most recently from 5664363 to 8d14992 Compare March 29, 2018 18:12

G-Harmon force-pushed the validate branch from 8d14992 to 868197a Compare March 29, 2018 22:26

nikhiljindal reviewed Mar 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

Add --validate flag: Checks that NodePort is the same in each cluster.

367cc21

For every Backend/Service in the Ingress, validates that each cluster is using the same port number for its NodePort. Still todo: check that the server version is at least 1.8.1.

G-Harmon commented Mar 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

G-Harmon force-pushed the validate branch from 868197a to 367cc21 Compare March 30, 2018 14:52

G-Harmon merged commit 6f5c9d0 into GoogleCloudPlatform:master Mar 30, 2018

nikhiljindal mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2018

do nodePort validation before creating ingress #166

Closed

Basic --validate flag: Checks that NodePort is the same in each cluster. #148

Basic --validate flag: Checks that NodePort is the same in each cluster. #148

Conversation

G-Harmon commented Mar 23, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nikhiljindal commented Mar 26, 2018

G-Harmon commented Mar 28, 2018

nikhiljindal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nikhiljindal commented Mar 29, 2018

G-Harmon commented Mar 29, 2018

G-Harmon commented Mar 29, 2018

G-Harmon commented Mar 29, 2018

nikhiljindal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

G-Harmon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nikhiljindal commented Mar 30, 2018

G-Harmon commented Mar 23, 2018 •

edited

Loading