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

Support for generate_request_id and preserve_external_request_id listener config #233

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 12, 2021

Conversation

piorkowskiprzemyslaw
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@slonka slonka temporarily deployed to envoy-control-pr-233 December 16, 2020 16:44 Inactive
@piorkowskiprzemyslaw piorkowskiprzemyslaw changed the title Support for generate_request_id preserve_external_request_id listener config Support for generate_request_id and preserve_external_request_id listener config Dec 16, 2020
@lukidzi
Copy link
Contributor

lukidzi commented Dec 17, 2020

LGTM, just add some test which checks x-request-id header behaviour.

@slonka slonka temporarily deployed to envoy-control-pr-233 December 18, 2020 07:35 Inactive
@slonka slonka temporarily deployed to envoy-control-pr-233 December 18, 2020 12:46 Inactive
@slonka slonka temporarily deployed to envoy-control-pr-233 January 11, 2021 13:17 Inactive
@lukidzi lukidzi self-requested a review January 11, 2021 13:31
import pl.allegro.tech.servicemesh.envoycontrol.config.service.HttpsEchoContainer
import pl.allegro.tech.servicemesh.envoycontrol.config.service.HttpsEchoResponse

fun ObjectAssert<HttpsEchoResponse>.isOk(): ObjectAssert<HttpsEchoResponse> {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We already have this for the response, duplicating this seems a bit odd but it's not that much code anyway.

// given
val requestIdHeader = mapOf("x-request-id" to "egress-fake-request-id")

untilAsserted {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should decide on a "standard method" for this type of tests. I think that everything except reliability tests should use waitForReadyServices. WDYT?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree. However, I'd change it in a separate PR. I want to merge it ASAP and I don't want to make changes to someone else's PR.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@pzmi pzmi merged commit 835a72e into master Jan 12, 2021
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.

4 participants