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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

IAM-942: internal ingress support #193

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 5, 2024
Merged

IAM-942: internal ingress support #193

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 5, 2024

Conversation

shipperizer
Copy link
Contributor

@shipperizer shipperizer commented Jun 27, 2024 •
edited
Loading

IAM-942: introduce internal-ingress via traefik-route

  • feat: introduce internal ingress
  • fix: use internal ingress if set, otherwise stick with k8s networking

@shipperizer shipperizer force-pushed the IAM-876 branch 2 times, most recently from df78084 to 9999144 Compare July 3, 2024 10:25
BarcoMasile
BarcoMasile reviewed Jul 3, 2024
View reviewed changes
requirements.txt Show resolved Hide resolved
src/utils.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@shipperizer shipperizer force-pushed the IAM-876 branch 2 times, most recently from b5b2289 to 0688ca8 Compare July 3, 2024 11:27
@shipperizer shipperizer marked this pull request as ready for review July 3, 2024 11:27
@shipperizer shipperizer requested a review from a team as a code owner July 3, 2024 11:27
@shipperizer shipperizer changed the title IAM 876 IAM-942: internal ingress support Jul 3, 2024
@shipperizer shipperizer force-pushed the IAM-876 branch 5 times, most recently from 2d5b92d to 1151adc Compare July 3, 2024 14:36
@shipperizer shipperizer mentioned this pull request Jul 3, 2024
Closed
@shipperizer shipperizer force-pushed the IAM-876 branch 4 times, most recently from 3e88a52 to c7e934a Compare July 3, 2024 19:06
natalian98
natalian98 reviewed Jul 4, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@natalian98 natalian98 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If I understand correctly, this PR deprecates the admin_ingress relation in favor of internal_ingress.
Should we remove the old relation then?

src/charm.py Show resolved Hide resolved
src/charm.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@shipperizer shipperizer force-pushed the IAM-876 branch 3 times, most recently from bbe443e to e734921 Compare July 4, 2024 13:16
@shipperizer shipperizer enabled auto-merge July 4, 2024 13:23
@shipperizer
Copy link
Contributor Author

If I understand correctly, this PR deprecates the admin_ingress relation in favor of internal_ingress. Should we remove the old relation then?

yes, we will, just would say we should do it in a separate pr and trigger the new track from there

@shipperizer shipperizer merged commit c581930 into main Jul 5, 2024
3 checks passed
@shipperizer shipperizer deleted the IAM-876 branch July 15, 2024 08:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@natalian98 natalian98 natalian98 approved these changes

@BarcoMasile BarcoMasile Awaiting requested review from BarcoMasile

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@shipperizer @BarcoMasile @natalian98