🐛 Only set at most one IP address in the SubnetPort Spec #1266
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
For addresses that set in our interface spec, only set the first valid one in the SubnetPort since despite being list, that is all VPC currently supports. Handle the case where IP address our set in our interface spec but the gateway is not. In that case, use the gateway that was provided by the network provider. I modeled our IPConfig results after what the network interface CR Status have, but that is getting cumbersome for our needs here. It is kind of confusing to see multiple gateways set. We should hoist out the gateways and just separate out the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
bryanv
commented
Oct 23, 2025
| } | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| It("creates SubnetPort with only MAC address when all IPs are invalid", func() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this was a duplicate test (kept the one below)
Minimum allowed line rate is |
zhangheliu
reviewed
Oct 24, 2025
| continue | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if interfaceSpec.Gateway4 == "" { //nolint:gocritic |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would something like this help get rid of the //nolint:gocritic?
for _, ipConfig := range result.IPConfigs {
if ipConfig.Gateway == "" {
continue
}
if ipConfig.IsIPv4 && interfaceSpec.Gateway4 == "" {
interfaceSpec.Gateway4 = ipConfig.Gateway
}
if !ipConfig.IsIPv4 && interfaceSpec.Gateway6 == "" {
interfaceSpec.Gateway6 = ipConfig.Gateway
}
if interfaceSpec.Gateway4 != "" && interfaceSpec.Gateway6 != "" {
break
}
}
zhangheliu
reviewed
Oct 24, 2025
| // here. Otherwise, even for NoIPAM still honor the interface spec addresses. | ||
| if !isVPC && len(interfaceSpec.Addresses) > 0 { | ||
| if len(interfaceSpec.Addresses) > 0 { | ||
| if interfaceSpec.Gateway4 == "" || interfaceSpec.Gateway6 == "" { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: I do not think this is needed since the same check is done in the for loop to break early.
zhangheliu
reviewed
Oct 24, 2025
| Expect(subnetPort.Spec.AddressBindings[1].MACAddress).To(Equal(macAddress)) | ||
| Expect(subnetPort.Spec.AddressBindings[2].IPAddress).To(Equal(ipAddr3)) | ||
| Expect(subnetPort.Spec.AddressBindings[2].MACAddress).To(Equal(macAddress)) | ||
| /* |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we remove those and add them back if needed in the future?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do, and why is it needed?
For addresses that set in our interface spec, only set the first valid one in the SubnetPort since despite being list, that is all VPC currently supports.
Handle the case where IP address our set in our interface spec but the gateway is not. In that case, use the gateway that was provided by the network provider.
I modeled our IPConfig results after what the network interface CR Status have, but that is getting cumbersome for our needs here. It is kind of confusing to see multiple gateways set. We should hoist out the gateways and just separate out the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
Which issue(s) is/are addressed by this PR? (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #
Are there any special notes for your reviewer:
Please add a release note if necessary: