fix: explicitly set ip family and family policy in gateway spec #5019
Conversation
|
the PR looks good @tekulvw ! |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5019 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 66.73% 66.69% -0.05%
==========================================
Files 209 209
Lines 32058 32264 +206
==========================================
+ Hits 21394 21518 +124
- Misses 9385 9445 +60
- Partials 1279 1301 +22 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Signed-off-by: Will Tekulve <[email protected]>
tekulvw
force-pushed
the
set-ev-proxy-ipfamily
branch
from
76ae649 to
12ecb06
Compare
|
Should be good to go @arkodg |
tekulvw
changed the title
|
thanks @tekulvw , can you also add a test case to TestService ? |
|
@arkodg added, that look okay? |
Signed-off-by: Will Tekulve <[email protected]>
tekulvw
force-pushed
the
set-ev-proxy-ipfamily
branch
from
318acb2 to
32f94db
Compare
|
@tekulvw I was referring to this function , by adding a test case here, you'd also need to add a corresponding testdata file in https://github.com/envoyproxy/gateway/tree/main/internal/infrastructure/kubernetes/proxy/testdata/services for bothipFamily: DualStack and ipFamily: IPv6, this is visually an easier way to catch regressions
|
Signed-off-by: Will Tekulve <[email protected]>
|
Yeah I just realized, are there docs for setting up local test envs? The new files I added should suffice. |
you can verify locally using |
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #5004
Release Notes: Yes/No