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

internal: Implement Envoy go-control-plane xDS Server #2845

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

stevesloka
Copy link
Member

@stevesloka stevesloka commented Aug 28, 2020

Adds the Envoy go-control-plane xDS Server as an option instead
of the Contour built-in version configurable by the config file.

Note: This doesn't actually serve up any resources, just implements the gRPC xDS server. Future PR will add that support.

Signed-off-by: Steve Sloka slokas@vmware.com

Adds the Envoy go-control-plane xDS Server as an option instead
of the Contour built-in version configurable by the config file.

Signed-off-by: Steve Sloka <slokas@vmware.com>
@stevesloka stevesloka added this to the 1.9.0 milestone Aug 28, 2020
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 28, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #2845 into main will decrease coverage by 1.04%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2845      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   76.37%   75.32%   -1.05%     
==========================================
  Files          74       76       +2     
  Lines        5832     5913      +81     
==========================================
  Hits         4454     4454              
- Misses       1283     1364      +81     
  Partials       95       95              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
cmd/contour/serve.go 2.34% <0.00%> (-0.16%) ⬇️
internal/contour/snapshot.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
internal/xds/hash.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
internal/xds/server.go 48.71% <0.00%> (-51.29%) ⬇️

@jpeach
Copy link
Contributor

jpeach commented Aug 31, 2020

This updates #2134 right? Is this intended to land before #2850?

@jpeach
Copy link
Contributor

jpeach commented Aug 31, 2020

This updates #2134 right? Is this intended to land before #2850?

The split in functionality between this and #2850 isn't that clear to me. This one has more snapshot cache code, but the PR description implies the opposite?

@stevesloka
Copy link
Member Author

I was trying to make smaller commits to make it easier to review, but this never got in before I kept moving along. I'll just close this and use the other since it supersedes this one.

@stevesloka stevesloka closed this Aug 31, 2020
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.

2 participants