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

rename/drop the prefix for dynamically created resources by deployer #10550

Closed
lgadban opened this issue Jan 29, 2025 · 6 comments · Fixed by #10629
Closed

rename/drop the prefix for dynamically created resources by deployer #10550

lgadban opened this issue Jan 29, 2025 · 6 comments · Fixed by #10629
Assignees

Comments

@lgadban
Copy link
Contributor

lgadban commented Jan 29, 2025

notably within the context of ServiceAccount

@lgadban lgadban converted this from a draft issue Jan 29, 2025
@lgadban lgadban moved this from Backlog to Planned in Kgateway Planning Feb 10, 2025
@lgadban lgadban added this to the kgateway v2.0.0-beta1 milestone Feb 11, 2025
@linsun
Copy link
Contributor

linsun commented Feb 11, 2025

We discussed this in today's community call, pls refer to the meeting mins and recording for details. Summary: For now, we want to honor the name specified by the user without prefix and we give user proper status when there are name conflicts with an existing deployment in the namespace.

So if I'm a user and deploy my-kgateway as my gateway name, I'd be getting my-kgateway as the deployment and SA.

kubectl apply -f- <<EOF
kind: Gateway
apiVersion: gateway.networking.k8s.io/v1
metadata:
  name: my-kgateway
spec:
  gatewayClassName: kgateway
  listeners:
  - protocol: HTTP
    port: 8080
    name: http
    allowedRoutes:
      namespaces:
        from: All
EOF

This is also consistent with Istio's behavior. Some context from transition istio's waypoint to gloo/kgateway-waypoint I ran into: #10453 (comment)

cc @yuval-k @ilrudie @stevenctl

@ilrudie
Copy link
Contributor

ilrudie commented Feb 12, 2025

+1, lets just drop all prefixes and use the Gateway name for the name of all resources created to implement that Gateway. It's easier to reason about and we need to add gracefully handling "naming conflict" anyway in order to support users who wish to create their Gateway deployment/service/etc... resources via Helm instead of using our automatic controller.

@ilrudie
Copy link
Contributor

ilrudie commented Feb 12, 2025

istio/istio#55053 might be worth tracking, the default will still be to allow manual deployments though

@lgadban lgadban self-assigned this Feb 13, 2025
@lgadban lgadban moved this from Planned to In progress in Kgateway Planning Feb 13, 2025
@lgadban
Copy link
Contributor Author

lgadban commented Feb 13, 2025

istio/istio#55053 might be worth tracking, the default will still be to allow manual deployments though

@ilrudie I don't think I fully follow get how this is related?

@ilrudie
Copy link
Contributor

ilrudie commented Feb 13, 2025

I think one of the best reasons to drop prefixing is to make it easier to reason about how the manual deployed gateways will be plumbed up and the above is related to that use case. It's really only tangentially related though and IMO regardless of 55053 outcome we should drop prefixes

@lgadban
Copy link
Contributor Author

lgadban commented Feb 14, 2025

Created #10628 to track the handling of potential naming conflicts.

This issue will be used to track the dropping of the prefix entirely from dynamic resources

@lgadban lgadban linked a pull request Feb 14, 2025 that will close this issue
@lgadban lgadban moved this from In progress to In review in Kgateway Planning Feb 14, 2025
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In review to Done in Kgateway Planning Feb 14, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants