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

Docs: add documentation about default ingress helm value, corrections to only ingress section #7943

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 20, 2022

Conversation

Frederik-Baetens
Copy link
Contributor

@Frederik-Baetens Frederik-Baetens commented Nov 19, 2021

What this PR does / why we need it:

Documentation about setting the default ingressclass annotation with helm was missing. Also this section could be interpreted as recommending setting a default ingressClass when running other ingresses besides ingress-nginx. While that is sometimes what the user wants, I don't think it's wise to recommend doing so to all users with multiple ingresses. The documentation has been changed to only recommend setting a default ingressClass when only running one ingress controller.

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation only

How Has This Been Tested?

I rendered the docs with mkdocs

Checklist:

  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I've read the CONTRIBUTION guide
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.

@linux-foundation-easycla
Copy link

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Nov 19, 2021

CLA Signed

The committers are authorized under a signed CLA.

  • ✅ Frederik-Baetens (d55b2592874228d6bccabb74e1252f9e0cf4985e, f03ee13ec3fdb69ed49bc18b9c05dab90f5e6664)

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please follow instructions at https://git.k8s.io/community/CLA.md#the-contributor-license-agreement to sign the CLA.

It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.


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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. labels Nov 19, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @Frederik-Baetens!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/ingress-nginx 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/ingress-nginx has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @Frederik-Baetens. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. needs-kind Indicates a PR lacks a `kind/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 19, 2021
@Frederik-Baetens
Copy link
Contributor Author

Frederik-Baetens commented Nov 19, 2021

Also your CLA process is a bit intrusive. Requiring a physical mailing adress for all contributors seems quite excessive. I've also signed a CLA with google (also transferring IP rights), and their process was significantly smoother. Why do I even need to sign 2 separate CLA's? (one easycla and one linux foundation cla)?

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. and removed cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Nov 19, 2021
@rikatz
Copy link
Contributor

rikatz commented Nov 29, 2021

will review the PR this week, but answering about the CLA: it's an org wide requirement (and also CNCF) and we are in the middle of migration to EasyCLA, so this is why both of them appears.

About mailing, etc etc it's out of our scope of control, as we are part of the org :)

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Dec 12, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Dec 16, 2021
@Frederik-Baetens
Copy link
Contributor Author

Frederik-Baetens commented Dec 16, 2021

I have rebased this pr, in doing so keeping the style changes that were committed to main.

If it's desirable, i can also omit the second commit in this pr, since it's a more opinionated change.

docs/index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 17, 2022
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 17, 2022
docs/index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@longwuyuan
Copy link
Contributor

@Frederik-Baetens , would it work for you to squash your commits

Copy link
Contributor

@iamNoah1 iamNoah1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/triage accepted
/priority important-soon
/kind documentation

@longwuyuan I think if we add the following label it should do it while merging, let's try :)
/label tide/merge-method-squash
@Frederik-Baetens thx
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. kind/documentation Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation. tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. and removed needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority needs-kind Indicates a PR lacks a `kind/foo` label and requires one. labels Jan 20, 2022
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 20, 2022
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Frederik-Baetens, iamNoah1

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 20, 2022
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 39e721d into kubernetes:main Jan 20, 2022
@iamNoah1
Copy link
Contributor

@longwuyuan worked

@longwuyuan
Copy link
Contributor

good job @iamNoah1

@tao12345666333 tao12345666333 mentioned this pull request Feb 27, 2022
rchshld pushed a commit to joomcode/ingress-nginx that referenced this pull request May 19, 2023
… to only ingress section (kubernetes#7943)

* add explanation about ingressClassResource.default for helm users

Also cleaned up the entire "I have only one instance of the
Ingress-NGINX controller in my cluster" section

* docs: default ingressclass only when running one controller

* fix link to what is the flag watch ingress

* clarify usage of default ingress class annotation
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/docs cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/documentation Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants