-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 372
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
E2E test for MC ACNP copy-span #3435
Conversation
/test-multicluster-e2e |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3435 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 65.51% 54.08% -11.43%
===========================================
Files 277 247 -30
Lines 27500 35027 +7527
===========================================
+ Hits 18016 18945 +929
- Misses 7567 14295 +6728
+ Partials 1917 1787 -130
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
d2a63f4
to
0d9e3ff
Compare
/test-multicluster-e2e |
0d9e3ff
to
1ceeb94
Compare
/test-multicluster-e2e |
1ceeb94
to
251d2fa
Compare
/test-multicluster-e2e |
Multi-cluster e2e already passing for the copy-span feature. |
/test-all |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM overall, two nits:
4fb0587
to
f53058d
Compare
Rebased and resolved merge conflicts /test-all /test-multicluster-e2e |
40781ae
to
ea5e639
Compare
Rebased and resolved merge conflicts /test-all /test-multicluster-e2e |
ea5e639
to
1d6f264
Compare
/test-multicluster-e2e |
1d6f264
to
32ee56d
Compare
_, wrong, _ := step.Reachability.Summary() | ||
if wrong != 0 { | ||
t.Errorf("Failure in cluster %s -- %d wrong results", clusterName, wrong) | ||
reachability.PrintSummary(true, true, true) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
not introduced in this PR, but I see all callers of reachability.PrintSummary() are using (true, true, true)
, maybe we can remove all three parameters. do you think if this can be enhanced in #3286 by enhao?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure. /cc @enhaocui for awareness.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, one question
match: Self | ||
- podSelector: | ||
matchLabels: | ||
k8s-app: kube-dns |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why it must allow kube-dns to access the test Pods?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It does not need to allow kube-dns for the test to pass. I am merely trying to align the yaml with https://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/blob/main/docs/antrea-network-policy.md#acnp-for-strict-namespace-isolation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But I didn't see this in that doc. And the rule should only make sense if it's egress rule, no reason to allow kube-dns accessing all Pods.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But I didn't see this in that doc.
Sorry I was meant to say in here #3512. I've created a PR to update the sample yamls of Antrea-native policies.
And the rule should only make sense if it's egress rule, no reason to allow kube-dns accessing all Pods.
I was thinking in the lines of the DNS return packets need to be allowed. But I guess your point is that does not warrant an ingress rule since there's going to be some bypass flow. In that case let me just remove this section from ingress then.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, the policy is stateful, DNS return packets will be allowed if the requests are allowed regardless of the existence of this rule. The rule will only apply to packets in request direction.
32ee56d
to
0011cb8
Compare
/test-all /test-multicluster-e2e |
@Dyanngg could you rebase the PR and check if #3435 (comment) makes sense? |
0011cb8
to
57a340a
Compare
/test-all /test-multicluster-e2e |
Signed-off-by: Yang Ding <[email protected]>
57a340a
to
f1c1dfa
Compare
/test-all /test-multicluster-e2e |
PR is based on #3424 and #3363. Only the last commit is relevant to this PR.