feat(dataplane) include licenses with fallback #6048
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When sending fallback last good configuration, include a license if available from a license source. The provided license is always the latest available license, even if a license was previously included in the last configuration. Move the license getter interface to the license package. Add a missing Vault handler to the Kong raw state converter. Update Kong raw state converter test to confirm all fields not specially exempted are handled by the converter.
rainest
force-pushed
the
feat/license-lastvalid
branch
from
d172834
to
5559e9e
Compare
randmonkey
approved these changes
May 17, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What this PR does / why we need it:
Include licenses (and Vaults) when sending fallback configuration.
Which issue this PR fixes:
Fix #5447
Special notes for your reviewer:
License handling was left as an open question in the original criteria. I chose to always populate the current license from the license getter, which will (sort of) modify the last good config. I've left TODO comments explaining the rationale for doing that over attempting to pull the license from the original config struct.
Will need to either strip (or at least shorten) those if reviewer agrees with the rationale or change stuff if we actually want to use another approach.
PR Readiness Checklist:
Complete these before marking the PR as
ready to review:CHANGELOG.mdrelease notes have been updated to reflect any significant (and particularly user-facing) changes introduced by this PR