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

workload selector should support set-based requirements #1965

Open
raffaelespazzoli opened this issue May 1, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

workload selector should support set-based requirements #1965

raffaelespazzoli opened this issue May 1, 2021 · 1 comment

Comments

@raffaelespazzoli
Copy link

(This is used to request new product features, please visit https://discuss.istio.io for questions on using Istio)

Describe the feature request

The type WorkloadSelector, used in many Istio type definitions, and defined here (

type WorkloadSelector struct {
) should align to the kubernetes LabelSelector1, which supports set based requirements.

so it would be possible to not only write expressions like:

 selector:
   matchLabels:
     serving.kubeflow.org/inferenceservice: test-service 

but also expressions like:

        selector:
          matchExpressions:
            - key: "serving.knative.dev/service"
              operator: Exists

Note that this enhancement would 100% back compatible and would like the istio behavior with the more general kubernetes behavior.

Describe alternatives you've considered
There isn't really an alternative for the problem I'm trying to serve.

Affected product area (please put an X in all that apply)

This api type appears in many APIs, not sure which all are, but like I said the change would be backward compatible.

[ ] Configuration Infrastructure
[x] Docs
[ ] Installation
[ ] Networking
[ ] Performance and Scalability
[ ] Policies and Telemetry
[ ] Security
[ ] Test and Release
[ ] User Experience

Additional context

@hzxuzhonghu
Copy link
Member

I kind of remember that when workloadSelector was designed, it was for simplicity and it could be easily expanded if further use case is clear.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants