Conformance test for GRPCRouteRequestMirror #3514 #4015

TaranpreetNatt · 2025-08-23T04:55:38Z

What type of PR is this?
/kind test
/area conformance-test

What this PR does / why we need it:
Adds conformance tests for GRPCRoute request mirroring functionality to enable gradual implementation support across Gateway API implementations.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #3514

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

… logic, will add in later commit

…PCRoute

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-08-23T04:55:47Z

Welcome @TaranpreetNatt!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-08-23T04:55:48Z

Hi @TaranpreetNatt. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

TaranpreetNatt · 2025-08-23T05:07:02Z

/release-note-none

LiorLieberman · 2025-09-02T21:02:35Z

/ok-to-test
/cc

LiorLieberman

Thanks!

conformance/tests/grpcroute-request-mirror.go

conformance/utils/grpc/mirror.go

LiorLieberman · 2025-09-02T21:05:41Z

conformance/tests/grpcroute-request-mirror.go

can you also add a test under conformance/tests/mesh?

Sure, I can look into it

Hey Lior, I tried to implement gRPC conformance tests under mesh, but I ran into some issues that aren't trivial for me to solve. I encountered the following issues below and what I tried. Maybe my approach is wrong? Is this needed for this issue and PR?

There is no method in the MeshPod struct to make a gRPC call to the other mesh pod. Looking at what the HTTP MakeRequestAndExpectEventuallyConsistentResponse does, it's essentially running a command on the MeshPod using the client.

When I tried to replicate that behaviour for gRPC, I got the following. Main issue is the unknown service.

`application@echo-v1-699dd9bfc7-5rxvl:/$ client --http2 -H "content-type: application/grpc" --method=POST http://echo:7070/gateway_api_conformance.echo_basic.grpcecho.GrpcEcho/Echo
[0] Url=http://echo:7070/gateway_api_conformance.echo_basic.grpcecho.GrpcEcho/Echo
[0] Header=content-type:application/grpc
[0] Latency=24.388708ms
[0] ActiveRequests=1
[0] StatusCode=200
[0] ResponseHeader=Content-Type:application/grpc
[0] ResponseHeader=Grpc-Message:unknown service gateway_api_conformance.echo_basic.grpcecho.GrpcEcho
[0] ResponseHeader=Grpc-Status:12

2025-09-04T09:05:37.461782Z info All requests succeeded`

Thanks, this slipped out of my radar. Sorry!

Can you take a look at https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/blob/main/conformance/tests/mesh/grpcroute-weight.go#L34-L84

I think it does the grpc call you need

Okay, I'll take a look this weekend.

conformance/utils/grpc/mirror.go

LiorLieberman · 2025-09-02T21:40:03Z

now I see that we already have a PR open for that -- #4013

…en HTTP and GRPC Makes the HTTP mirror validation function configurable with a logPattern parameter so it can be reused by gRPC tests, eliminating code duplication. - Parameterize logPattern in HTTP ExpectMirroredRequest - Update gRPC to use shared function with gRPC-specific pattern - Remove duplicate grpc/mirror.go implementation - Make error messages protocol-agnostic Addresses reviewer feedback in PR kubernetes-sigs#4015.

TaranpreetNatt · 2025-09-04T02:08:04Z

now I see that we already have a PR open for that -- #4013

How does it work when two PRs are open for the same issue?

LiorLieberman · 2025-09-05T12:48:22Z

now I see that we already have a PR open for that -- #4013

How does it work when two PRs are open for the same issue?

We usually go by who picked up the issue first. And it looks like you did. I will post a comment on the other PR to hold in the meatime, but this PR is good to continue.

TaranpreetNatt · 2025-09-05T15:59:09Z

Sounds good, is there anything left on this PR you would like me to get done?

TaranpreetNatt · 2025-09-12T15:29:29Z

Hi @LiorLieberman, Is there anything left to do in this PR you would like me to get done? I left a comment about the mesh tests as well.

LiorLieberman · 2026-01-07T20:13:15Z

conformance/utils/http/mirror.go

 )

-func ExpectMirroredRequest(t *testing.T, client client.Client, clientset clientset.Interface, mirrorPods []MirroredBackend, path string, timeoutConfig config.TimeoutConfig) {
+func ExpectMirroredRequest(t *testing.T, client client.Client, clientset clientset.Interface, mirrorPods []MirroredBackend, logPattern string, timeoutConfig config.TimeoutConfig) {


Dont we have other occasions where ExpectMirroredRequest is called and would need to be changed? Can we instead have in the function a logic to determine if its grpc or http and validate based on this?

I changed the approach here. Writing the logic inside the http.ExpectMirroredRequest worked but it was messy and the code was confusing. Instead I extracted the common logic into ExpectMirroredRequestWithPattern and wrapped the http.ExpectMirroredRequest and grpc.ExpectMirroredRequest to call ExpectMirroredRequestWithPattern. This way we keep the same function signature and we aren't using the http package in grpc tests.

…or-tests

…ences - Add http.ExpectMirroredRequestWithPattern() with shared validation logic - Both protocols now share the same core validation: goroutine spawning, log reading, regex matching, and error handling

LiorLieberman · 2026-01-22T21:07:49Z

/retest

LiorLieberman · 2026-01-22T22:48:39Z

/lgtm
/approve

Thanks @TaranpreetNatt !!

k8s-ci-robot · 2026-01-22T22:48:47Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

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

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

Details

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

TaranpreetNatt · 2026-01-22T23:37:10Z

/assign @shaneutt

LiorLieberman · 2026-01-23T18:29:25Z

conformance/tests/grpcroute-request-mirror.go

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+/*
+Copyright 2025 The Kubernetes Authors.


LiorLieberman · 2026-01-23T18:30:49Z

conformance/utils/http/mirror.go

 )

 func ExpectMirroredRequest(t *testing.T, client client.Client, clientset clientset.Interface, mirrorPods []MirroredBackend, path string, timeoutConfig config.TimeoutConfig) {
+	logPattern := fmt.Sprintf("Echoing back request made t \\%s to client", path)


Suggested change

logPattern := fmt.Sprintf("Echoing back request made t \\%s to client", path)

logPattern := fmt.Sprintf("Echoing back request made to \\%s to client", path)

LiorLieberman · 2026-01-23T18:43:07Z

actually, did you get to handle this comment? https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/pull/4015/files#r2317173510

Adding the mesh tests?

/hold

TaranpreetNatt · 2026-01-23T18:46:05Z

actually, did you get to handle this comment? https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/pull/4015/files#r2317173510

Adding the mesh tests?

/hold

I'll take a look

LiorLieberman

Also, just tested locally with istio and it fails

grpc.go:333: 2026-01-23T19:13:20.719413473Z: Response expectation failed for request: {<nil>  <nil> 0xc000eba258 {OK 0xc0000aaf48 <nil> <nil> [X-Header-Remove]} grpc-infra-backend-v1 gateway-conformance-infra [{{grpc-infra-backend-v2 gateway-conformance-infra} <nil>}] }  not ready yet: expected pod name to start with grpc-infra-backend-v1, got grpc-infra-backend-v2-5d756c89dd-rtlbv (after 29.085549379s)

will be great if you can fix it, run it and report back

LiorLieberman · 2026-01-23T19:15:16Z

/lgtm cancel

TaranpreetNatt · 2026-01-23T19:16:50Z

Also, just tested locally with istio and it fails

grpc.go:333: 2026-01-23T19:13:20.719413473Z: Response expectation failed for request: {<nil>  <nil> 0xc000eba258 {OK 0xc0000aaf48 <nil> <nil> [X-Header-Remove]} grpc-infra-backend-v1 gateway-conformance-infra [{{grpc-infra-backend-v2 gateway-conformance-infra} <nil>}] }  not ready yet: expected pod name to start with grpc-infra-backend-v1, got grpc-infra-backend-v2-5d756c89dd-rtlbv (after 29.085549379s)

will be great if you can fix it, run it and report back

Okay, I'll take a look at this as well.

TaranpreetNatt added 3 commits August 13, 2025 02:51

Added conformance test for GRPCRouteRequestMirror, incomplete testing…

17d6b50

… logic, will add in later commit

Added logic to check if the headers were modified correctly by the GR…

3f1a7ec

…PCRoute

Finished GRPCRouteRequestMirror conformance test

2fd8d8e

k8s-ci-robot requested review from candita and robscott August 23, 2025 04:55

k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Aug 23, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. labels Aug 23, 2025

Improved variable naming: receivedMap -> receivedHeadersMap for clarity

f78a5ae

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from LiorLieberman September 2, 2025 21:02

k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Sep 2, 2025

LiorLieberman reviewed Sep 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

TaranpreetNatt added 2 commits September 2, 2025 18:48

Fixed linting errors

f7852a0

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Nov 4, 2025

TaranpreetNatt requested a review from LiorLieberman November 5, 2025 03:22

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Nov 5, 2025

LiorLieberman reviewed Jan 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

TaranpreetNatt and others added 3 commits January 21, 2026 20:59

Merge branch 'main' into tests/add-grpcRoute-coverage-in-request-mirr…

aead445

…or-tests

Fixing merge conflicts from main

5139ac6

Refactor ExpectMirroredRequest to accomodate for http and grpc differ…

36e5a4d

…ences - Add http.ExpectMirroredRequestWithPattern() with shared validation logic - Both protocols now share the same core validation: goroutine spawning, log reading, regex matching, and error handling

TaranpreetNatt force-pushed the tests/add-grpcRoute-coverage-in-request-mirror-tests branch from 14ea540 to 36e5a4d Compare January 22, 2026 05:00

Fix linting errors

2368ce5

k8s-ci-robot assigned LiorLieberman Jan 22, 2026

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 22, 2026

k8s-ci-robot assigned shaneutt Jan 22, 2026

LiorLieberman reviewed Jan 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 23, 2026

LiorLieberman reviewed Jan 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 23, 2026

	logPattern := fmt.Sprintf("Echoing back request made t \\%s to client", path)
	logPattern := fmt.Sprintf("Echoing back request made to \\%s to client", path)

Conformance test for GRPCRouteRequestMirror #3514 #4015

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Conformance test for GRPCRouteRequestMirror #3514 #4015

Conversation

TaranpreetNatt commented Aug 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Aug 23, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Aug 23, 2025

Uh oh!

TaranpreetNatt commented Aug 23, 2025

Uh oh!

LiorLieberman commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

LiorLieberman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TaranpreetNatt Sep 4, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

LiorLieberman commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

TaranpreetNatt commented Sep 4, 2025

Uh oh!

LiorLieberman commented Sep 5, 2025

Uh oh!

TaranpreetNatt commented Sep 5, 2025

Uh oh!

TaranpreetNatt commented Sep 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LiorLieberman commented Jan 22, 2026

Uh oh!

LiorLieberman commented Jan 22, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 22, 2026

Uh oh!

TaranpreetNatt commented Jan 22, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LiorLieberman commented Jan 23, 2026

Uh oh!

TaranpreetNatt commented Jan 23, 2026

Uh oh!

LiorLieberman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LiorLieberman commented Jan 23, 2026

Uh oh!

TaranpreetNatt commented Jan 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

TaranpreetNatt commented Aug 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

TaranpreetNatt Sep 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading