Skip to content
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

Refactor the cloudStream to pass-through the request instead of parsing the web path #2756

Closed
fisherxu opened this issue Apr 6, 2021 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
help wanted Denotes an issue that needs help from a contributor. Must meet "help wanted" guidelines. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. lifecycle/stale

Comments

@fisherxu
Copy link
Member

fisherxu commented Apr 6, 2021

What would you like to be added/modified:
Edgestream is used to handle the request from apiserver, then forward the request to edged through tunnel. Now in edgestream, we parse the url path as here: https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge/blob/master/cloud/pkg/cloudstream/streamserver.go#L52

We need to find a way to pass-through the request, through the hijack stuff, instead of parsing the web path manually.

@fisherxu fisherxu added help wanted Denotes an issue that needs help from a contributor. Must meet "help wanted" guidelines. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. labels Apr 6, 2021
@fisherxu fisherxu changed the title Refactor the edgeStream to pass-through the request instead of parsing the web path Refactor the cloudStream to pass-through the request instead of parsing the web path Apr 6, 2021
@rajibmitra
Copy link

could you please assign this to me @fisherxu

@cbl315
Copy link
Contributor

cbl315 commented Jun 18, 2021

/assign

Let me try.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Sep 16, 2021

Hello 👋 Looks like there was no activity on this issue for last 90 days.
Do you mind updating us on the status? Is this still reproducible or needed? If yes, just comment on this PR or push a commit. Thanks! 🤗
If there will be no activity for 60 days, this issue will be closed (we can always reopen an issue if we need!).

@cbl315
Copy link
Contributor

cbl315 commented Sep 16, 2021

Latest status: not work with this but might be free to try in the next month. So keep it unstale.

@stale stale bot removed the lifecycle/stale label Sep 16, 2021
@avyamsh
Copy link

avyamsh commented Nov 22, 2021

/assign

@cbl315 cbl315 removed their assignment Nov 22, 2021
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Nov 23, 2022

Hello 👋 Looks like there was no activity on this issue for last 90 days.
Do you mind updating us on the status? Is this still reproducible or needed? If yes, just comment on this PR or push a commit. Thanks! 🤗
If there will be no activity for 60 days, this issue will be closed (we can always reopen an issue if we need!).

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jun 11, 2023

Closing for now as there was no activity for last 60 days after marked as stale, let us know if you need this to be reopened! 🤗

@stale stale bot closed this as completed Jun 11, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
help wanted Denotes an issue that needs help from a contributor. Must meet "help wanted" guidelines. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. lifecycle/stale
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants