argo-rollouts
argo-rollouts copied to clipboard
feat(istio): Support TCP routes traffic splitting for Istio virtual service. Closes #1660
Checklist:
- [x] Either (a) I've created an enhancement proposal and discussed it with the community, (b) this is a bug fix, or (c) this is a chore.
- [x] The title of the PR is (a) conventional, (b) states what changed, and (c) suffixes the related issues number. E.g.
"fix(controller): Updates such and such. Fixes #1234"
. - [x] I've signed my commits with DCO
- [x] I have written unit and/or e2e tests for my change. PRs without these are unlikely to be merged.
- [x] My builds are green. Try syncing with master if they are not.
- [ ] My organization is added to USERS.md.
@imranismail , could you in the PR update the doc (https://github.com/argoproj/argo-rollouts/blob/master/docs/features/traffic-management/istio.md#how-it-works) to mention that either, http, tls, or tcp is supported?
@imranismail , could you in the PR update the doc (https://github.com/argoproj/argo-rollouts/blob/master/docs/features/traffic-management/istio.md#how-it-works) to mention that either, http, tls, or tcp is supported?
@huikang I've updated the test and docs
Codecov Report
Merging #1659 (82b7167) into master (0ec5ac1) will increase coverage by
0.13%
. The diff coverage is89.47%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1659 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 82.24% 82.37% +0.13%
==========================================
Files 121 121
Lines 17969 18073 +104
==========================================
+ Hits 14778 14888 +110
+ Misses 2421 2416 -5
+ Partials 770 769 -1
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
rollout/templateref.go | 82.98% <ø> (ø) |
|
rollout/trafficrouting/istio/istio.go | 74.95% <86.79%> (+2.01%) |
:arrow_up: |
.../apis/rollouts/validation/validation_references.go | 90.43% <100.00%> (+2.74%) |
:arrow_up: |
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
I finally have some spare cycles to work on this again, I will pick this up where it was left off and incorporate the suggested changes next week!
I finally have some spare cycles to work on this again, I will pick this up where it was left off and incorporate the suggested changes next week!
Thank You! Much appreciated.
I'm not sure how to increase the code coverage for some of the sad path, they seem unnecessary. Need some assistance if this needs to be covered!
I'm not sure how to increase the code coverage for some of the sad path, they seem unnecessary. Need some assistance if this needs to be covered!
That's okay. We should at least try to not decrease the overall coverage and in this case the overall coverage is in + so it looks good to me.
Hi team, just checking if there is anything I can do to help ease the review process?
I'm not sure how to increase the code coverage for some of the sad path, they seem unnecessary. Need some assistance if this needs to be covered!
Sorry, I somehow missed it. It looks good overall. Could you please resolve the conflicts? Thank you so much!
Go Published Test Results
1 731 tests 1 731 :heavy_check_mark: 2m 33s :stopwatch: 101 suites 0 :zzz: 1 files 0 :x:
Results for commit 82b71670.
:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.
E2E Tests Published Test Results
1 files 1 suites 48m 55s :stopwatch: 88 tests 81 :heavy_check_mark: 3 :zzz: 4 :x: 92 runs 85 :heavy_check_mark: 3 :zzz: 4 :x:
For more details on these failures, see this check.
Results for commit 82b71670.
:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.
@agrawroh I manage to solve it, this is ready to merge now.
Nice job!