Ingress NGINX - Support Redirect#299
Conversation
|
Hi @jgreeer. 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 Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions 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. |
|
|
|
tbh gwapi 1.5 is just around the corner. I think we can merge this as is. WDYT @mikemorris |
this doesn't have the 307/308 status codes, it emits warnings for them. so we can merge now and then make another PR later for the status code annotations. |
|
/ok-to-test |
Co-authored-by: Steven Jin <stevenjin8@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Steven Jin <stevenjin8@gmail.com>
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jgreeer, Stevenjin8 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
|
||
| // Set port if present | ||
| if parsedURL.Port() != "" { | ||
| port, err := strconv.Atoi(parsedURL.Port()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are we ignoring this error? Let's append to errs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This did get me thinking... we could have named ports here right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this does gets caught by url.Parse() before we reach this, but i added a check to be safe. also not sure what you mean steven?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jgreeer i just reread this and what I said makes no sense
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jgreeer Atoi can only really fail if the port overflows int, which shouldn't be possible unless you are actively trying to mess up. This seems fine.
What type of PR is this?
Fixes #268
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: