ListenerSet APIs + Generated Clients #3588

dprotaso · 2025-02-03T22:15:53Z

Part of #1713

Merge #3589 beforehand (to make this diff easier)

Note: this required two different client sets because if you try to generate a client set containing the stable group (gateway.networking.k8s.io) and experimental (gateway.networking.k8s-x.io) client-gen uses gateway part from both api groups for naming in the client set and it creates a conflict

refactor codegen scripts to make it easier to generate two clients (to be removed)
add listenerset types
adjust GEP to match go type
run deepcopy-gen & register-gen
perform code generation

Release Note

Introduces ListenerSet API & Generate Clients (in the group gateway.networking.k8s-x.io)

dprotaso · 2025-02-03T22:16:26Z

I'm going to pull

refactor codegen scripts to make it easier to generate two clients

Into a separate PR

dprotaso · 2025-02-03T22:17:53Z

/hold for #3589

dprotaso · 2025-02-03T23:26:30Z

apisx/v1alpha1/listenerset_types.go

+	// +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:message="Listener name must be unique within the Gateway",rule="self.all(l1, self.exists_one(l2, l1.name == l2.name))"
+	//
+	// # TODO: Figure out how to allow empty port here
+	// #+kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:message="Combination of port, protocol and hostname must be unique for each listener",rule="self.all(l1, self.exists_one(l2, l1.port == l2.port && l1.protocol == l2.protocol && (has(l1.hostname) && has(l2.hostname) ? l1.hostname == l2.hostname : !has(l1.hostname) && !has(l2.hostname))))"


note this TODO

Ok this should become

self.all(l1, !has(l1.port) || // Port is missing no conflict can ever occur self.exists_one(l2, has(l2.port) && // If L2 has no port than there can't be a conflict // Regular check since both listeners have a port l1.port == l2.port && l1.protocol == l2.protocol && (has(l1.hostname) && has(l2.hostname) ? l1.hostname == l2.hostname : !has(l1.hostname) && !has(l2.hostname)) ) )

dprotaso · 2025-02-04T00:21:06Z

/hold need to add the Gateway changes

dprotaso · 2025-02-04T00:47:08Z

/hold cancel

dprotaso · 2025-02-06T15:55:10Z

Note: this required two different client sets because if you try to generate a client set containing the stable group (gateway.networking.k8s.io) and experimental (gateway.networking.k8s-x.io) client-gen uses gateway part from both api groups for naming in the client set and it creates a conflict

Ok - I figured out there's a marker

+groupGoName=SomeUniqueShortName

So we could have a single clientset that has stable and experimental apis - let me know what people prefer

shaneutt · 2025-02-07T15:41:05Z

geps/gep-1713/index.md

@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ type ListenerNamespaces struct {
 	// * None: Only listeners defined in the Gateway's spec are allowed
 	//
 	// +optional
-	// +kubebuilder:default=Same


This PR seems to jump us all the way from provisional to experimental without hitting implementable. If we have consensus then there might not actually be anything wrong with that, but bare minimum we should update the GEP status accordingly here.

Want me to split out the APIs in to a separate PR?

No that's OK! I just think we should flag the status change here and then please feel free to consider this comment resolved.

I just realized another opportunity to update the GEP, but I'll create a separate comment.

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-02-07T15:41:16Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dprotaso
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from shaneutt. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

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

shaneutt · 2025-02-07T17:11:56Z

apis/v1/gateway_types.go

+type AllowedListeners struct {
+	// Namespaces defines which namespaces ListenerSets can be attached to this Gateway.
+	// While this feature is experimental, the default value is to allow no ListenerSets.
+	//
+	// +optional
+	// +kubebuilder:default={from: None}
+	Namespaces *ListenerNamespaces `json:"namespaces,omitempty"`
+}


I love this part of the API, because I think it captures a very important use case for cluster admins: when they want a Gateway to operate more like a classic ingress-controller, in that there's a single LB for routes across many namespaces.

What occurs to me is that we should update the GEP, as it currently states cross-namespace as a "later goal" but it seems like we're already going for it, and I'm very much in favor of this being an immediate goal. Anything I'm missing? (if not, please just feel free to update the GEP to reflect the goal and then consider my comment resolved at your discretion)

Eventually I personally would like to take this a step further: I would like our documentation to be even more clear about a strong intention for this kind of use case as I anticipate it being a very common ask over time.

+1. I think that cross-namespace is very important for this GEP and I'd love to see it in the first iteration of the API.

With the deadline this week I don't think I have time to add this - I can imagine ParentGatewayReference type supporting a Namespace field.

shaneutt

I think overall we're heading in a good direction here, but I think we need to reiterate what feels like a more obvious question as I read more: "What is a Gateway after this, really?"

Personally I'll have to think on this quite a bit and come back around to it 🤔

… in kubernetes-sigs#3588

dprotaso · 2025-02-14T20:56:38Z

I pushed a change to combine everything into a single clientset. It requires me to have a single applyconfiguration package that contains apis and apisx. So folks will have to change their package names if they're using the types there directly. (We could add type aliases)

It should be easy to revert the single client changes so let me know what you prefer

robscott

Thanks @dprotaso!

apisx/doc.go

apisx/v1alpha1/doc.go

apisx/v1alpha1/listenerset_types.go

mlavacca · 2025-02-18T14:04:41Z

apis/v1/gateway_types.go

+type AllowedListeners struct {
+	// Namespaces defines which namespaces ListenerSets can be attached to this Gateway.
+	// While this feature is experimental, the default value is to allow no ListenerSets.
+	//
+	// +optional
+	// +kubebuilder:default={from: None}
+	Namespaces *ListenerNamespaces `json:"namespaces,omitempty"`
+}


+1. I think that cross-namespace is very important for this GEP and I'd love to see it in the first iteration of the API.

mlavacca · 2025-02-18T14:08:17Z

apisx/v1alpha1/shared_types.go

+
+// ParentGatewayReference identifies an API object including its namespace,
+// defaulting to Gateway.
+type ParentGatewayReference struct {


Since this is a generic reference, I would consider naming it differently than ParentGatewayReference, as the reference can of any group/kind

This is a new type so we can default the Group and Kind - also we might add a Namespace in the future here

mlavacca · 2025-02-18T14:12:21Z

apisx/v1alpha1/listenerset_types.go

+// ListenerSetSpec defines the desired state of a ListenerSet.
+type ListenerSetSpec struct {
+	// ParentRef references the Gateway that the listeners are attached to.
+	ParentRef ParentGatewayReference `json:"parentRef,omitempty"`


I think we should consider to make this field Required. Is there any specific reason to accept a ListenerSet with an empty ParentRef?

I thought it is required since there's no +optional marker - is there something else to do?

I think ,omitempty is the actual bit that makes this optional and the +optional tag is just a convention. Recommend removing the ,omitempty as well.

apisx/v1alpha1/listenerset_types.go

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. label Feb 3, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from kflynn and mlavacca February 3, 2025 22:16

dprotaso mentioned this pull request Feb 3, 2025

refactor codegen scripts to make it easier to generate two clients #3589

Merged

dprotaso force-pushed the listenerset branch from d1c440a to 389a354 Compare February 3, 2025 22:46

dprotaso changed the title ~~ListenerSet APIs + Generated Clients~~ [wip] ListenerSet APIs + Generated Clients Feb 3, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 3, 2025

dprotaso changed the title ~~[wip] ListenerSet APIs + Generated Clients~~ ListenerSet APIs + Generated Clients Feb 3, 2025

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 3, 2025

dprotaso commented Feb 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. and removed do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. labels Feb 4, 2025

shaneutt self-assigned this Feb 6, 2025

shaneutt self-requested a review February 6, 2025 15:52

shaneutt requested review from robscott and youngnick February 6, 2025 15:57

shaneutt requested changes Feb 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

shaneutt reviewed Feb 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 8, 2025

ericdbishop added a commit to ericdbishop/gateway-api that referenced this pull request Feb 13, 2025

Attempting to match the experimental API structure that dprotaso made…

e1dcdad

… in kubernetes-sigs#3588

ericdbishop added a commit to ericdbishop/gateway-api that referenced this pull request Feb 13, 2025

Attempting to match the experimental API structure that dprotaso made…

6f04b8b

… in kubernetes-sigs#3588

ericdbishop mentioned this pull request Feb 13, 2025

GEP 3388 Retry Budget API Implementation #3607

Open

dprotaso force-pushed the listenerset branch from 9385dd0 to 547053f Compare February 14, 2025 20:25

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 14, 2025

robscott reviewed Feb 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

mlavacca reviewed Feb 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

DuncanDoyle mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2025

Add GEP-1713: ListenerSets - Standard Mechanism to Merge Multiple Gateways support kgateway-dev/kgateway#10662

Open

5 tasks

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 21, 2025

dprotaso added 9 commits February 24, 2025 21:23

add listenerset types

7621a0d

adjust GEP to match go type

0743c14

run deepcopy-gen & register-gen

e50b95f

perform code generation

96002df

Add ListenerSetList type

9eec244

remove TODO for cel validation that allows an optional port

0d0bce1

add Gateway allowedListeners property

689db16

Add 'None' as an allowable option for FromNamespaces

51ae9b2

combine into a single client

3ea5a7d

dprotaso force-pushed the listenerset branch from e320cfe to 3ea5a7d Compare February 25, 2025 02:23

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 25, 2025

dprotaso added 6 commits February 24, 2025 21:43

fix group name to be x-k8s.io

0041411

add a blurb about listener conflict

5b89d98

listener names don't need to be unique across listenersets and gateways

deb01aa

change use of ListenerSet conditions to a MUST requirement

9c8a3d8

add a Programmed Reason of ParentNotProgrammed

8451b25

fix typo

548da37

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

ListenerSet APIs + Generated Clients #3588

ListenerSet APIs + Generated Clients #3588

dprotaso commented Feb 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dprotaso commented Feb 3, 2025

dprotaso commented Feb 3, 2025

dprotaso Feb 3, 2025

dprotaso Feb 4, 2025

dprotaso commented Feb 4, 2025

dprotaso commented Feb 4, 2025

dprotaso commented Feb 6, 2025

shaneutt Feb 7, 2025

dprotaso Feb 7, 2025

shaneutt Feb 7, 2025

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 7, 2025

shaneutt Feb 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mlavacca Feb 18, 2025

dprotaso Feb 25, 2025

shaneutt left a comment

dprotaso commented Feb 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

robscott left a comment

mlavacca Feb 18, 2025

mlavacca Feb 18, 2025

dprotaso Feb 25, 2025

mlavacca Feb 18, 2025

dprotaso Feb 25, 2025

robscott Feb 25, 2025

ListenerSet APIs + Generated Clients #3588

Are you sure you want to change the base?

ListenerSet APIs + Generated Clients #3588

Conversation

dprotaso commented Feb 3, 2025 • edited Loading

Release Note

dprotaso commented Feb 3, 2025

dprotaso commented Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dprotaso commented Feb 4, 2025

dprotaso commented Feb 4, 2025

dprotaso commented Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 7, 2025

shaneutt Feb 7, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shaneutt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dprotaso commented Feb 14, 2025 • edited Loading

robscott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dprotaso commented Feb 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

shaneutt Feb 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dprotaso commented Feb 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading