mirror of
https://github.com/cozystack/cozystack.git
synced 2026-11-03 18:47:04 +09:00
Aleksei Sviridkin
4b2507b7a1
The comment on the shared CEL string said what the hostname requirement is but not what it is worth per kind. Two of the three schemas leave spec.hostnames optional at every version the vendored bundle serves, so for HTTPRoute and GRPCRoute this policy is the only rejection a hostname-less route meets; tlsroutes requires the field at v1 and v1alpha3 and not at v1alpha2, so there the policy closes the gap for as long as v1alpha2 is served. State that where the requirement is stated. The comment on the port-80 allowedRoutes filter credited the cert-manager namespace entry for letting ACME complete, which the paragraph above it retracts: the solver route lives in the tenant namespace, and that is what keeps ACME working. The same sentence claimed the filter keeps app routes off port 80, and the Layer 1 paragraph of the gateway README claimed it too. It does not. A tenant that owns its Gateway is its own gateway namespace, so its app routes are admitted by this very filter; what it excludes is cozy-* and inheriting children. Both copies now say that. Nothing said why naming the apex on the redirect costs no coverage, which is the question a reader has once the route stops matching every host. It holds because of the other half of this change: the port-80 listener admits routes only from the tenant namespace and cert-manager's, and the tightened route policy requires every route there to declare hostnames inside the apex. An inheriting child does not widen that set either, and the comment now says so at the point the hostnames are chosen: the gateway hostname policy compares every listener against the host label of the Gateway's own namespace, so a child apex outside it never gets its listener, the Gateway write carrying it being refused at admission whole, in reconcileGateway and before this route is rendered, while a child apex under this one passes that check and the wildcard already covers it. The empty-apex guard in renderHTTPRedirect, and the test pinning it, both read as though the guard is what spares an operator an unreadable schema error. It is, but the condition stated for it named the number of attached routes, which does not enter into it. In HTTP-01 the listener set is built from route hostnames alone, so reconcileGateway never reads the apex ahead of the guard however many routes attach. DNS-01 and existingSecret render an apex listener, and any tlsPassthroughServices entry builds <service>.<apex>, so in those the operator meets the equivalent error against the Gateway first. State that condition once, at the guard, and let the test defer to it rather than carry a second copy that can drift; the test stays green either way because the fake client does not validate against the CRD schema. The e2e suite explained omitting the TLSRoute empty-list probe by the v1 schema rejecting an empty list. Both halves of that are true and the conclusion does not follow: the probe runs at v1alpha2, which marks spec.hostnames neither required nor minItems, so an empty list reaches admission there exactly as an absent field does. What makes the omission safe is that all three policies render one byte-identical CEL string, so the HTTPRoute pair proves that term already. Assisted-by: LLM Signed-off-by: Aleksei Sviridkin <f@lex.la>