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

feat: Use caddy's internal Proxy protocol module #166

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Embraser01
Copy link
Member

Also deprecated the one we have as it's redundant with the one included in caddy and people should use the one provided by caddy.

Because it's the same library behind, I do not expect any breaking change.

I'll let it in draft until the new proxyprotol module is merged and released in caddy (caddyserver/caddy#5915)

Also deprecated the one we have as it's redundant with the one included in caddy. Because it's the same library behind, I do not expect any breaking change.
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 25, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (bec9a58) 37.08% compared to head (bb1a8ae) 37.08%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #166   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   37.08%   37.08%           
=======================================
  Files          12       12           
  Lines         364      364           
=======================================
  Hits          135      135           
  Misses        228      228           
  Partials        1        1           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ module github.com/caddyserver/ingress
go 1.21

require (
github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2 v2.7.5
github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2 v2.7.6-0.20231024195719-67e567b7ecec
Copy link
Member

@mavimo mavimo Oct 30, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Embraser01 do we need a version change here?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure on how long we will have to wait before a tagged version, no reason to update yet, I created this PR after testing it to check if everything was working great.

Maybe @mholt can give us a little bit of insight on when the next version will be released?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I suppose we can get rid of this file completely, right?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This may break some workflows even if I don't think a lot of people use it. I think we can remove it anyway as there will be an alternative included

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.

None yet

2 participants