New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix unexpected behavior of multi accesslogging filters #43372
Conversation
😊 Welcome @fatedier! This is either your first contribution to the Istio istio repo, or it's been You can learn more about the Istio working groups, code of conduct, and contributing guidelines Thanks for contributing! Courtesy of your friendly welcome wagon. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
/retest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good catch, please add release-notes for backport
4e1aec3
to
1198a57
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
/retest |
Co-authored-by: Greg Hanson <gregory.hanson@solo.io>
85401d8
to
7d00611
Compare
@fatedier: The following test failed, say
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
wait for #43461 |
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ func (b *AccessLogBuilder) setTCPAccessLog(push *model.PushContext, proxy *model | |||
mesh := push.Mesh | |||
cfgs := push.Telemetry.AccessLogging(push, proxy, class) | |||
|
|||
if cfgs == nil { | |||
if len(cfgs) == 0 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why need this?
nil
means there's no telemetry api
istio/pilot/pkg/model/telemetry.go
Line 240 in 57f3b2b
if len(ct.Logging) == 0 && len(t.meshConfig.GetDefaultProviders().GetAccessLogging()) == 0 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can you retest without this changes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I got this point, this's someting was talked in #39521 (comment).
thanks for catching this!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@zirain I found that there will be a new problem here, which will cause the disable access logs to fail. However, I am confused as to why this e2e test passed. https://github.com/istio/istio/blob/master/tests/integration/telemetry/api/accesslogs_test.go#L58
It failed when I tried to cherry-pick it to release 1.16.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/retest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
/test integ-ambient |
Co-authored-by: Eric Van Norman <ericvn@us.ibm.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
release note looks good
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created: #43590 |
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created: #43591 |
Please provide a description of this PR:
Fix #43371