runtime: flexible layering configuration. #7032
Conversation
To support TDS and to provide operator flexibility in how it relates to existing runtime layering, this PR introduces support for explicit control over layering. This eliminates the distinguished role of subdirectory and override_subdirectory, for example, in favor of arbitrary disk overlay layers. This PR deprecates the existing runtime configuration in favor of the new layered variant. As a bonus, the PR fixes some of the runtime stats and related docs. Risk level: Low Testing: various unit tests (including server_test) additions. Signed-off-by: Harvey Tuch <htuch@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Harvey Tuch <htuch@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Harvey Tuch <htuch@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Harvey Tuch <htuch@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Harvey Tuch <htuch@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Harvey Tuch <htuch@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Harvey Tuch <htuch@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Harvey Tuch <htuch@google.com>
| server_.runtime().mergeValues(overrides); | ||
| } catch (const EnvoyException& e) { | ||
| response.add(e.what()); | ||
| return Http::Code::ServiceUnavailable; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would probably return a 400 here, though I don't feel very strongly about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My thinking here is that 503 better reflects the fact that there is a service, but it's not available due to missing config. But I'm also shruggie on it :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jmarantz probably has a stronger opinion here so I might briefly ping him and see if he cares. I'm fine either way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Happy to continue discussing, but I'll take the feedback in a separate PR if that's OK and merge this one, as this is blocking some other PRs that are time sensitive. I'd like to land the TDS API proto PR that follows this so we can unblock other dependent projects that are waiting for this.
| throw EnvoyException( | ||
| "Too many admin layers specified in LayeredRuntime, at most one may be specified"); | ||
| } else { | ||
| config_has_admin_layer_ = true; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there anything in the docs about requiring exactly one admin layer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Signed-off-by: Harvey Tuch <htuch@google.com>
|
Will merge given two LGTMs, please leave further feedback and I'll do a followup PR. |
To support TDS and to provide operator flexibility in how it relates to
existing runtime layering, this PR introduces support for explicit
control over layering. This eliminates the distinguished role of
subdirectory and override_subdirectory, for example, in favor of
arbitrary disk overlay layers.
This PR deprecates the existing runtime configuration in favor of the
new layered variant.
As a bonus, the PR fixes some of the runtime stats and related docs.
Risk level: Low
Testing: various unit tests (including server_test) additions.
Part of #6708.
Signed-off-by: Harvey Tuch htuch@google.com