Added ability to override frontend priority for k8s ingress router #1874

DiverOfDark · 2017-07-18T07:05:15Z

Description

Added ability to specify traefik.frontend.priority priority from kubernetes ingress annotation.
This is useful when you have following case:

Ingress A:
Host: *.mydomain

Ingress B:
Host: specific.mydomain

timoreimann

Thanks for the PR -- exposing the priority through an annotation should prove helpful to a bunch of people. 👏

Left a few comments. One general remark: We still need to extend the unit test suite.

timoreimann · 2017-07-18T07:10:08Z

provider/kubernetes/kubernetes.go

+				priority := len(pa.Path)
+
+				priorityString, ok := i.Annotations[types.LabelFrontendPriority]
+				if ok {


You can merge this line with the previous one, thereby reducing the scope of priorityString to the necessary minimum.

timoreimann · 2017-07-18T07:11:55Z

provider/kubernetes/kubernetes.go

@@ -186,6 +186,17 @@ func (p *Provider) loadIngresses(k8sClient Client) (*types.Configuration, error)
 				witelistSourceRangeAnnotation := i.Annotations[annotationKubernetesWhitelistSourceRange]
 				whitelistSourceRange := provider.SplitAndTrimString(witelistSourceRangeAnnotation)

+				priority := len(pa.Path)
+
+				priorityString, ok := i.Annotations[types.LabelFrontendPriority]


I'd suggest to rename priorityString to priorityRaw to better convey its semantics.

timoreimann · 2017-07-18T07:17:53Z

provider/kubernetes/kubernetes.go

+				if ok {
+					priorityParsed, err := strconv.Atoi(priorityString)
+
+					if err == nil {


We should not ignore errors.

When we encounter an error, we can either

drop the associated frontend (by deleting it from the frontends map) or

fall back to the default priority of 1.

We kind of do a mix in Traefik, so we cannot just point at any single pattern. Personally, I'm much more in favor of dropping the frontend as this makes the error explicit and way easier to identify. @dtomcej @errm thoughts?

In either case, the error should be logged.

Actually in current logic it will fall back to the default priority of len(Path), as if no priority is set.

Personally I think that dropping the frontend is ok when it has wrong Auth (because we obviously don't wanna show something secret to all users), but here probably routing with default priority is fine.

Yeah that does sound reasonable. 👍

timoreimann · 2017-07-18T07:19:28Z

provider/kubernetes/kubernetes.go

+					priorityParsed, err := strconv.Atoi(priorityString)
+
+					if err == nil {
+						priority = priorityParsed;


No trailing semicolon needed here.

timoreimann · 2017-07-18T07:20:02Z

provider/kubernetes/kubernetes.go

+					if err == nil {
+						priority = priorityParsed;
+					}
+				}


Can you put the entire priority processing logic into a dedicated function?

DiverOfDark · 2017-07-18T20:18:53Z

Also need to update documentation

DiverOfDark · 2017-07-19T20:53:53Z

@timoreimann , looks like I changed everything you asked, could you please check again?

timoreimann

Looking pretty good already. Some minor things left.

timoreimann · 2017-07-19T23:11:07Z

provider/kubernetes/kubernetes.go

+		if err == nil {
+			priority = priorityParsed
+		} else {
+			log.Errorf("Error in ingress: failed to parse '%q' value '%q'.", types.LabelFrontendPriority, priorityRaw)


We don't need the extra ' quotes if we already use %q, do we?

timoreimann · 2017-07-19T23:15:15Z

provider/kubernetes/kubernetes_test.go

+	actualJSON, _ := json.Marshal(actual)
+	expectedJSON, _ := json.Marshal(expected)
+
+	if !reflect.DeepEqual(actual, expected) {


Please use assert.Equal (like here). Comparing with DeepEqual and showing JSON can hide subtle differences, like nil slices vs. empty slices.

I know we use it everywhere in our Kubernetes tests, which is something we need to get rid of. :-)

timoreimann

LGTM, thanks. 👍

timoreimann · 2017-07-24T11:33:59Z

Sorry, I just realized something: Should the annotation actually go on the Ingress or rather the Service object?

We do keep some annotations on Services. I know @dtomcej previously explained why, but I forgot...

dtomcej · 2017-07-24T15:08:51Z

The annotation should go on the ingress in this case, because it affects how the controller handles the routing to the service. The ingress does not care how the services are configured or structured :)

dtomcej

LGTM

ldez · 2017-07-25T08:46:12Z

docs/user-guide/kubernetes.md

+## Specifying priority for routing
+
+Sometimes you need to specify priority for ingress route, especially when handling wildcard routes.
+This can be done by adding annotation ```traefik.frontend.priority```, i.e.:


could you replace ``` only one ` ?

sure, replaced

ldez

Great Job 👍

LGTM

Updated documentation Pull Request review fixes (renaming & code cleanup)

… JSON to assert.Equals in test.

DiverOfDark changed the title ~~Added ability to override frontend priority for ingress router~~ Added ability to override frontend priority for k8s ingress router Jul 18, 2017

timoreimann suggested changes Jul 18, 2017

View reviewed changes

ldez added area/provider/k8s/ingress kind/enhancement a new or improved feature. status/2-needs-review contributor/waiting-for-corrections labels Jul 18, 2017

ldez requested a review from a team July 19, 2017 13:36

ldez removed the contributor/waiting-for-corrections label Jul 19, 2017

timoreimann suggested changes Jul 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

ldez added contributor/waiting-for-corrections and removed contributor/waiting-for-corrections labels Jul 19, 2017

timoreimann approved these changes Jul 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

dtomcej approved these changes Jul 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

ldez suggested changes Jul 25, 2017

View reviewed changes

juliens added the contributor/waiting-for-corrections label Jul 25, 2017

ldez approved these changes Jul 27, 2017

View reviewed changes

ldez removed the contributor/waiting-for-corrections label Jul 27, 2017

juliens added status/3-needs-merge and removed status/2-needs-review labels Jul 27, 2017

ldez modified the milestone: 1.4 Jul 27, 2017

ldez added the status/4-merge-in-progress label Jul 29, 2017

DiverOfDark added 4 commits July 29, 2017 13:02

Added ability to override frontend priority for ingress router

ddda24d

Added tests

fe1bf20

Updated documentation Pull Request review fixes (renaming & code cleanup)

Fix documentation

69281a8

Fix logging (do not use hardcoded parameter name)

77630e4

DiverOfDark added 4 commits July 29, 2017 13:02

Fix formatting

9c97ae0

More docs

8157aa5

Pull Request fixes - removed not neccessary quotes, changed comparing…

1c7e0cf

… JSON to assert.Equals in test.

Pull Request fix - changed `` to

68c6a9c

ldez removed the status/4-merge-in-progress label Jul 29, 2017

ldez merged commit 94f922c into traefik:master Jul 29, 2017

ldez removed the status/3-needs-merge label Jul 29, 2017

DiverOfDark deleted the feature/kubernetes-priority-label branch July 29, 2017 16:36

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Added ability to override frontend priority for k8s ingress router #1874

Added ability to override frontend priority for k8s ingress router #1874

DiverOfDark commented Jul 18, 2017

timoreimann left a comment

timoreimann Jul 18, 2017

timoreimann Jul 18, 2017

timoreimann Jul 18, 2017

DiverOfDark Jul 18, 2017

timoreimann Jul 19, 2017

timoreimann Jul 18, 2017

timoreimann Jul 18, 2017

DiverOfDark commented Jul 18, 2017 •

edited

Loading

DiverOfDark commented Jul 19, 2017

timoreimann left a comment

timoreimann Jul 19, 2017

timoreimann Jul 19, 2017

timoreimann left a comment

timoreimann commented Jul 24, 2017

dtomcej commented Jul 24, 2017

dtomcej left a comment

ldez Jul 25, 2017

DiverOfDark Jul 26, 2017

ldez left a comment

Added ability to override frontend priority for k8s ingress router #1874

Added ability to override frontend priority for k8s ingress router #1874

Conversation

DiverOfDark commented Jul 18, 2017

Description

timoreimann 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

DiverOfDark commented Jul 18, 2017 • edited Loading

DiverOfDark commented Jul 19, 2017

timoreimann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

timoreimann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

timoreimann commented Jul 24, 2017

dtomcej commented Jul 24, 2017

dtomcej left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ldez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

DiverOfDark commented Jul 18, 2017 •

edited

Loading