feat: allow multiple CR connections of the same type#1078
Open
tyler-catlin wants to merge 16 commits intomasterfrom
Open
feat: allow multiple CR connections of the same type#1078tyler-catlin wants to merge 16 commits intomasterfrom
tyler-catlin wants to merge 16 commits intomasterfrom
Conversation
|
|
Contributor
✅ Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.
💻 Catch issues earlier using the plugins for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Visual Studio, and Eclipse. |
Contributor
✅ Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.
💻 Catch issues earlier using the plugins for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Visual Studio, and Eclipse. |
fix: support requests that are missing header, fall back to old behavior fix: more string misses, more specific testing fix: use unique connections to count, and check for existence in tests fix: add env vars, linting fix: add a bunch of env vars that are accessed fix: move a bunch of this to a separate config file for testing fix: oopsie add the identifier header
tyler-catlin
force-pushed
the
allow-multiple-crs-of-same-type
branch
from
610a38d to
ee6ed32
Compare
| 'connection found but type is not CRA-compatible', | ||
| ); | ||
| res | ||
| .status(505) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: is this supposed to be a 505? Maybe a 400 would be better?
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree this is an odd return value, but the reason it's here is because that was the previous behavior.
505 is kind of related to this (version not supported), but I agree that a 4xx is probably the better return code. If we're okay changing the status codes that we're returning here then I can change it, but I'm not sure if that falls under the purview of this change.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do?
This PR adds the capability to route container registry API requests more intelligently, allowing multiple container registries of the same type to exist on a single universal broker. There is also fallback logic if a routing key is not present.
Where should the reviewer start?
The meat of this change is in the
websocketConnectionSelectorMiddleware. There are substantial changes to the routing logic for where a request ends up, and this should only affect universal broker setups.How should this be manually tested?
Not sure... I have set up a legacy broker locally and connected it to pre-prod, but setting up a universal broker locally seems like it is quite a different setup. Help from the team would be appreciated here.
Any background context you want to provide?
This is to support a larger change of supporting multiple registries of the same type in a single org.
Screenshots
Additional questions