HTTPBackendRef RequestMirror Conformance Test

[dprotaso]

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup
/kind test
/area conformance

What this PR does / why we need it

There's currently no conformance test for this feature which is 'Extended'

Additional notes

I dropped path logic in filter so we can re-use the same test for the backend

NONE

[dprotaso]

/kind cleanup
/kind test
/area conformance

[dprotaso]

adding approvers
/assign @arkodg @mlavacca @sunjayBhatia

adding reviewers
/cc @LiorLieberman @michaelbeaumont @Xunzhuo

[dprotaso]

Conformance reviewers/approvers - can I get review please @arkodg @mlavacca @sunjayBhatia @michaelbeaumont @LiorLieberman @Xunzhuo

[dprotaso]

I've added back all the test cases for the regular filter. The backend filter has a subset of these cases.

[arkodg]

has this been tested against any implementation ? afaik this isnt easily possible on envoy based implementations

[dprotaso]

has this been tested against any implementation ?

I ran these tests against Istio. The backendRef variant fails as expected because they don't support that feature.

[arkodg]

imo lets add conformance tests if at least 1 implementation supports this case.

[robscott]

imo lets add conformance tests if at least 1 implementation supports this case.

+1, I think it's pretty difficult to add conformance tests before at least one implementation supports a feature. If we were to do that, I think we'd need to introduce some concept of conformance test stability and consider untested conformance tests as a non-blocking reference point.

[dprotaso]

imo lets add conformance tests if at least 1 implementation supports this case.

But then an implementation can't advertise the support this feature on the GatewayClass. They'll have to wait for a new gateway api release to do this.

+1, I think it's pretty difficult to add conformance tests before at least one implementation supports a feature. If we were to do that, I think we'd need to introduce some concept of conformance test stability and consider untested conformance tests as a non-blocking reference point.

Then why is this functionality in the API? If we have the shape of feature in our API we can write conformance for it

[dprotaso]

Also the test is identical to the pre-split filter - so for this case I wouldn't be concerned with stability of the conformance test.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dprotaso
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign robscott for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment