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

Update conformance test to assert observedGeneration is bumped #1584

Closed
dprotaso opened this issue Dec 7, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1586
Closed

Update conformance test to assert observedGeneration is bumped #1584

dprotaso opened this issue Dec 7, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1586
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor

dprotaso commented Dec 7, 2022

As a follow up to #1364 we should update conformance tests to assert that each condition's observeredGeneration is incremented to match the resource's metadata.generation

This is important because as updates occur to a resource's spec block (which increments metadata.generation) it implies the conditions are stale until the controller acknowledges them.

Also the language in the GEP is a bit confusing

observedGeneration is an optional field that sets what the metadata.generation field was when the controller last saw a resource. Note that this is optional in the struct, but is required for Gateway API conditions. This will be enforced in the conformance tests in the future.

I would probably just state that observedGeneration is required to be set by gateway implementations and ignore mentioning that there's an +optional marker

@youngnick
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, reading it back, that is confusing, thanks. I'll do a small PR to update that. But agreed that we should check observedGeneration matches correctly as well.

@shaneutt shaneutt added this to the v0.6.1 milestone Dec 7, 2022
@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

dprotaso commented Dec 7, 2022

/assign @dprotaso

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants