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

Create Ingress awaiter with incremental status updates #283

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Nov 21, 2018

Conversation

lblackstone
Copy link
Member

@lblackstone lblackstone commented Nov 17, 2018

Fixes #287

@lblackstone lblackstone changed the title [WIP] Create Ingress awaiter with incremental status updates Create Ingress awaiter with incremental status updates Nov 20, 2018
Copy link
Contributor

@hausdorff hausdorff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm voting to approve because it is very similar to what we're doing for Service, and because it's covered well by tests.

config createAwaitConfig
ingress *unstructured.Unstructured
ingressReady bool
ingressClient *dynamic.ResourceInterface
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We're doing this because of initializeClient right? I tend to find this awkward. Because we are using the client pool under the covers, it doesn't seem that bad to always just create the client any time that method is called.

ingressWatcher, endpointWatcher watch.Interface, timeout <-chan time.Time,
settled chan struct{},
) error {
iia.config.logStatus(diag.Info, "[1/3] Waiting on endpoints for each Ingress path")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In the Service we chose to phrase this along the lines of "service must target pods". I think this is important to keep because many of our users do not know what endpoints are.

@lblackstone
Copy link
Member Author

I did address the feedback, but since it was already approved anyway, and tests are passing, will merge now.

@lblackstone lblackstone merged commit 3d49f78 into master Nov 21, 2018
@pulumi-bot pulumi-bot deleted the lblackstone/ingress branch November 21, 2018 02:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants