Add v3 xDS support #140

mpuncel · 2020-07-27T13:56:12Z

This commit adds support for the v3 xDS transport as well as support for
storing and serving v3 resources out of the resource cache.

Note that resource versions and xDS transport version are decoupled to
provide a migration path to v3. End users can decide to generate v3
resources and serve them over v2 transport during migration, or continue
to generate v2 resources and serve them over v3 transport.

For implementation simplicity, it is not possible to generate a
combination of v2 and v3 resources in the control plane, which would
require either up or down conversion.

Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel [email protected]

mpuncel · 2020-07-27T13:58:57Z

cache/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/Snapshot.java

-   * Returns all cluster items in the CDS payload.
-   */
-  public abstract SnapshotResources<Cluster> clusters();
+  abstract String version(String typeUrl, List<String> resourceNames);


Diff came out big, Snapshot basically got renamed to V2Snapshot, and a new V3Snapshot was created. they extend a common abstract class.

mpuncel · 2020-07-27T14:00:20Z

cache/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/V2SimpleCache.java

+
+import static io.envoyproxy.controlplane.cache.Resources.V2_TYPE_URLS;
+
+public class V2SimpleCache<T> extends SimpleCache<T, V2Snapshot> {


These classes make it so callers don't have to worry about the new type variable on SimpleCache, and also passing type URLs when instantiating the cache

mpuncel · 2020-07-27T14:00:47Z

cache/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/SnapshotCache.java

   * consistent (i.e. all referenced resources must be included in the snapshot).
   *
   * @param group group identifier
   * @param snapshot a versioned collection of node config data
   */
-  void setSnapshot(T group, Snapshot snapshot);
+  void setSnapshot(T group, U snapshot);


Callers will need to update to be specific about the type of snapshot they're generating, either V2Snapshot or V3Snapshot

mpuncel · 2020-07-27T14:02:32Z

cache/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/XdsRequest.java

+ * a v3 request.
+ */
+@AutoValue
+public abstract class XdsRequest {


This class is basically a oneof of v2 request or v3 request, and delegates methods to the right one.

mpuncel · 2020-07-27T14:04:12Z

cache/src/test/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/V2SimpleCacheTest.java

@@ -0,0 +1,546 @@
+package io.envoyproxy.controlplane.cache;


With the tests, my approach was basically to rename the existing test to V2, and then copy/paste to a V3 class, updating the imports to use v3 message types, and using v3 type URLs. I also had to implement the new callbacks interfaces, and throw IllegalStateException in the test if the unexpected request version happens.

This means theres' a lot of copy/paste, but IMO that's less concerning for tests. I like tests to be clear rather than super DRY, whereas the implementation being reused as much as possible makes less surface for bugs.

I'm open to feedback on this though

I'll do a second round and try to dry them up myself and see if that is better.

mpuncel · 2020-07-27T14:05:09Z

server/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/server/DiscoveryServerCallbacks.java

@@ -54,17 +55,42 @@ default void onStreamOpen(long streamId, String typeUrl) {
   *     will be returned to the client and the stream will be closed with error.
   */
  default void onStreamRequest(long streamId, DiscoveryRequest request) {


I left the old method name the same to minimize impact on end users, but maybe we should force a rename? failing to implement the v3 version and turning on v3 transport in the data plane would cause issues

I would rename it to be explicit. We're already forcing renames in other places.

mpuncel · 2020-07-27T14:05:19Z

server/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/server/DiscoveryServerCallbacks.java

+   * @throws RequestException optionally can throw {@link RequestException} with custom status. That status
+   *     will be returned to the client and the stream will be closed with error.
+   */
+  default void onV3StreamRequest(long streamId, io.envoyproxy.envoy.service.discovery.v3.DiscoveryRequest request) {


should I not default this for safety?

Can you explain more what the consequences are?

I believe could mean a user accidentally doesn't implement the new callback after doing an upgrade, and then they don't get the callbacks they expect.

mpuncel · 2020-07-27T15:02:29Z

I thought envoyproxy/envoy#10776 was done already, I think we have to wait for that

mpuncel · 2020-07-27T15:04:18Z

alternatively, I need to implement up/down conversion here

This commit adds support for the v3 xDS transport as well as support for storing and serving v3 resources out of the resource cache. Note that resource versions and xDS transport version are decoupled to provide a migration path to v3. End users can decide to generate v3 resources and serve them over v2 transport during migration, or continue to generate v2 resources and serve them over v3 transport. For implementation simplicity, it is not possible to generate a combination of v2 and v3 resources in the control plane, which would require either up or down conversion. Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

mpuncel · 2020-07-28T15:03:18Z

.../main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/server/serializer/DefaultProtoResourcesSerializer.java

+      case V3:
+        return output.toBuilder()
+            .setTypeUrl(Resources.V2_TYPE_URLS_TO_V3.get(output.getTypeUrl()))
+            .build();


I added conversion in this PR. the type URL of the output Any will be rewritten to match the request version if they're different.

This is covered in V2DiscoveryServerV3ResourcesXdsIT, V2DiscoveryServerV3ResourcesAdsIT, V3DiscoveryServerV2ResourcesXdsIT, and V3DiscoveryServerV2ResourcesAdsIT.

Those tests do not cover using resource_api_version at all, which I'd be open to adding if folks think there'd be value

slonka · 2020-07-29T11:35:31Z

This is really big :) I'll probably need a couple of rounds of review to get through all.

mpuncel · 2020-07-29T14:26:28Z

I also want to note that while it passes integration tests, I haven't tried it in production yet. I put up the PR on the early side since there has been interest from others in the status of this work. I'll keep posted on this PR when we try it out

@slonka yep, definitely a big one. I do think most of the LOC added is in tests, which are mostly copy/paste. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make reviewing easier

…of EC from github.com/envoyproxy/java-control-plane/pull/140/

slonka

Overall looks good, small changes needed. I also did a dry run of migration in our control plane and everything seems ok: https://github.com/allegro/envoy-control/compare/v3-update-dry-run?expand=1 . I still need to understand migration paths (and their tests) more deeply. I'll do it in the second run of review.

slonka · 2020-08-05T14:49:02Z

cache/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/Resources.java

+              }
+            } catch (InvalidProtocolBufferException e) {
+              LOGGER.error(
+                  "Failed to convert HTTP connection manager config struct into protobuf message for listener {}",


What about adding info about it being V3?

slonka · 2020-08-05T14:50:38Z

cache/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/Resources.java

+        // For EDS clusters, use the cluster name or the service name override.
+        if (c.getType() == io.envoyproxy.envoy.config.cluster.v3.Cluster.DiscoveryType.EDS) {
+          if (!isNullOrEmpty(c.getEdsClusterConfig().getServiceName())) {
+            refs.add(c.getEdsClusterConfig().getServiceName());
+          } else {
+            refs.add(c.getName());
+          }
+        }


Nitpick: This can be extracted to a method and used in V2 version.

can it? c has a different type for each of them

slonka · 2020-08-06T05:40:08Z

cache/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/StatusInfo.java

@@ -13,7 +13,8 @@
  long lastWatchRequestTime();

  /**
-   * Returns the node grouping represented by this status, generated via {@link NodeGroup#hash(Node)}.
+   * Returns the node grouping represented by this status, generated via
+   * {@link NodeGroup#hashv3(Node)} or {@link NodeGroup#hashV2(io.envoyproxy.envoy.api.v2.core.Node)}.


Invalid link, should be V3

Suggested change

* {@link NodeGroup#hashv3(Node)} or {@link NodeGroup#hashV2(io.envoyproxy.envoy.api.v2.core.Node)}.

* {@link NodeGroup#hashV3(Node)} or {@link NodeGroup#hashV2(io.envoyproxy.envoy.api.v2.core.Node)}.

slonka · 2020-08-06T06:27:58Z

server/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/server/AdsDiscoveryRequestStreamObserver.java

-    this.latestResponse = new ConcurrentHashMap<>(Resources.TYPE_URLS.size());
-    this.ackedResources = new ConcurrentHashMap<>(Resources.TYPE_URLS.size());
+
+    // NOTE: while V2 URLs are referenced here, the size of V2_TYPE_URLS and V3_TYPE_URLS is the


Instead of a comment maybe we can check the size here and throw an exception if it's not.

slonka · 2020-08-06T06:34:50Z

server/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/server/DiscoveryServerCallbacks.java

@@ -54,17 +55,42 @@ default void onStreamOpen(long streamId, String typeUrl) {
   *     will be returned to the client and the stream will be closed with error.
   */
  default void onStreamRequest(long streamId, DiscoveryRequest request) {


I would rename it to be explicit. We're already forcing renames in other places.

slonka · 2020-08-06T07:47:50Z

cache/src/test/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/V2SimpleCacheTest.java

@@ -0,0 +1,546 @@
+package io.envoyproxy.controlplane.cache;


I'll do a second round and try to dry them up myself and see if that is better.

pbetkier

Overall the change looks nice, thanks for the work. I left a few comments.

Also, test copies aren't great in general, yet I don't have an idea of how to easily share them between v2 and v3. Maybe somebody else has an idea?

pbetkier · 2020-08-06T10:34:33Z

cache/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/V3Snapshot.java

+ * resources. Snapshots should have distinct versions per node group.
+ */
+@AutoValue
+public abstract class V3Snapshot extends Snapshot {


Why version prefixes in class names like here? To me that's what packages are for, i.e. (...).v3.Snapshot. Otherwise, we'll eventually remove v2 support but stay with awkward V3Snapshot and the like forever.

pbetkier · 2020-08-06T10:35:41Z

cache/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/NodeGroup.java

@@ -14,5 +14,12 @@
   *
   * @param node identifier for the envoy instance that is requesting config
   */
-  T hash(Node node);
+  T hashV2(Node node);


I'd rather use method overloading than version suffixes, so have hash(Node) and hash(v3.Node) instead of hashV2(Node) and hashV3(v3.Node).

pbetkier · 2020-08-06T10:39:15Z

cache/src/main/java/io/envoyproxy/controlplane/cache/Resources.java

+      + ".transport_sockets.tls.v3.Secret";
+
+  private static final String V2_TYPE_URL_PREFIX = "type.googleapis.com/envoy.api.v2.";
+  public static final String CLUSTER_TYPE_URL = V2_TYPE_URL_PREFIX + "Cluster";


We have CLUSTER_TYPE_URL and V3_ CLUSTER_TYPE_URL, not V2_CLUSTER_TYPE_URL and V3_ CLUSTER_TYPE_URL. Why is that?

Also, we could consider introducing a namespace for constants like:

public class Resources { // ... public static class V2 { public static final String CLUSTER_TYPE_URL = "..."; // ... } public static class V3 { public static final String CLUSTER_TYPE_URL = "..."; // ... } }

…adoc link. Use method overloading instead of different names for v2 vs v3 node hash Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

mpuncel · 2020-08-08T23:57:40Z

Thanks for the feedback! I believe I addressed everything except the test duplication so far

slonka · 2020-08-18T08:02:09Z

@mpuncel we're watching ServiceMeshCon & KubeCon this week but we'll try to make a review ASAP. Please make sure the build is passing though.

slonka · 2020-08-20T07:17:07Z

@sschepens can you look at this PR as well?

slonka · 2020-08-21T12:50:32Z

I'm missing the overall picture of how the migration should occur.

Now:

all Envoys are using resource_api_version and transport_api_version v2 (by default)

Where we want to be:

all Envoys are using resource_api_version and transport_api_version v3

During the migration we would have some Envoys requesting resources with resource_api_version v3 on transport_api_version v2 protocol, which is fine (we can handle that). Once we're done we would switch from V2DiscoveryServer to V3DiscoveryServer but... Envoys will fail with:

StreamAggregatedResources gRPC config stream closed: 12, Method not found: envoy.service.discovery.v2.AggregatedDiscoveryService/StreamAggregatedResources

since we did not switch them from transport_api_version v2 to v3. Shouldn't the V2DiscoveryServer also handle envoy.service.discovery.v3.AggregatedDiscoveryService/StreamAggregatedResources (and vice versa)?

If I'm completely wrong, can you describe the migration steps on the Envoy side and the CP side?

mpuncel · 2020-08-22T15:48:05Z

I was envisioning that a control plane implementation will set up both a V2DiscoveryServer and a V3DiscoveryServer implementation, and give them the same cache instance. This would let you handle a combination of v2 and v3 transport as the migration happens, but only need to generate one resource version.

It's my understanding that all combinations of transport and resource API version can be handled, but I don't see a reason why during migration you wouldn't keep transport_api_version and resource_api_version the same.

It looks like the integration tests might unintentionally always be using the v2 resource version.

we could:

fix the tests using v3 transport_api_version to also use v3 resource_api_version
OR
add integration tests for all combinations of transport_api_version, resource_api_version, & cache version? that would result in an explosion of integration tests, but potentially worth it?

…on tests Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

Note that there are not tests that cover a different transport version from resource version in the interest of not doubling the number of integration tests. Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

mpuncel · 2020-08-23T00:13:58Z

I DRY'd up the tests somewhat. I think a lot of the challenge there is that a lot of the heavy lifting is in static field initializers, so I don't think I can use an inheritance based approach very effectively. Java is not my main language though, so feel free to point out suggestions.

I also fixed the integration tests so that the v3 clients are requesting v3 resources as well, it was an oversight that I wasn't setting resource_api_version: V3 before, so it was defaulting to V2. This had some trickle down effect where I had to change the test resources to not use deprecated V2 fields, because those can't be converted to v3.

Also added a migration guide explaining how I think migration will work. Hopefully that helps clear up how this PR should be used, and y'all can double check me, it's definitely a bit confusing.

mpuncel · 2020-08-23T00:22:11Z

Also let me know if it would help for me to break this into smaller PRs that can be reviewed piecemeal. I needed to do it all together I think in order to understand how it would work, and I think it's probably useful to see in its entirety before reviewing smaller chunks, but I know it's pretty tough to review in its current form

rene-m-hernandez · 2020-09-02T22:19:07Z

It would seem that remaining on v2 of xDS API incurs a performance penalty when using Envoy 14+: envoyproxy/envoy#12080

Any chance more progress has been made on v3 support in jcp? I've been hoping I would not need to fork this repo, but after discovering the above issue ....

nezdolik · 2020-09-08T10:10:47Z

@mpuncel great initiative! We at Spotify are currently migrating edge control plane to use xds api v3 and are interested in this PR. Let us know if we could help.

slonka · 2020-09-08T13:25:47Z

I was envisioning that a control plane implementation will set up both a V2DiscoveryServer and a V3DiscoveryServer implementation, and give them the same cache instance.

~~If you want to give them the same cache instance then I guess SimpleCache cannot be abstract right (because it must server both V3 and V2 Snapshots)?~~

Edit: I'm working on an integration test that has both V2 and V3 Envoy's connected. If that works, this will remove all doubt that the migration is possible.

~~Not sure it's completely right but here's the code: slonka@6ff0c80 I do not see other way than this to serve V2 and V3 snapshots.~~

Edit: Ok, I created a version that serves only V3 Snapshots and both V2 and V3 Envoy consume it. It works because of this #140 (comment) right? If this https://github.com/mpuncel/java-control-plane/compare/mpuncel/v3-support...slonka:v3-support-slonka?expand=1 test shows how you envisioned the migration then I'm convinced and we can move this PR forward.

slonka · 2020-09-09T11:36:53Z

I released update-v3-SNAPSHOT from: https://github.com/envoyproxy/java-control-plane/tree/v3-support-slonka and will be integrating it with our Control Plane and testing. I had to disable a couple of tests that passed locally but failed on CI, please work on them when you have time.

nezdolik · 2020-09-09T12:13:57Z

cc @rulex123

nezdolik · 2020-09-14T12:15:53Z

@slonka @mpuncel could you try to retrigger build to check if this is an intermittent issue? i've tested this PR with increased timeout and all checks are passing: #142. It could be flakiness or too small timeout.

slonka · 2020-09-15T07:42:36Z

@nezdolik - I've done it a couple of times but maybe this one will pass: https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/envoyproxy/java-control-plane/22/workflows/55a2c4b0-f831-4bfd-bc9e-656d4c925f45

nezdolik · 2020-09-15T09:04:30Z

@slonka the latest run is successful. This flakiness could appear in future builds. Did not dig into code much, one assumption is that echo container was not ready to serve request at the time the test was run (docker networking was not fully set up).

slonka · 2020-09-15T09:43:10Z

@nezdolik the tests from this branch failed once again: https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/envoyproxy/java-control-plane?branch=pull%2F140

I do not know why CircleCi reported your PR (142) in this PR as passing (or am I missing something?).

AFAIK our test setup in envoy-control (example) does not suffer from this sort of flakiness and I'm guessing RuleChain might be a problem ( https://github.com/envoyproxy/java-control-plane/pull/140/files#diff-1305245ead97a0cc1311ece8b78e6838R85 ).

I think we can open up an issue about flaky tests and move forward with this PR. Have you had a chance to test this version at Spotify?

nezdolik · 2020-09-15T12:00:13Z

@slonka maybe because the git history in my PR is complete copy of this PR, if CI relies on comparing git hashes to distinguish builds...
Opening a follow up issue for fixing tests sgtm.
I can test snapshot version today for our setup and report back.

nezdolik · 2020-09-15T16:44:07Z

@slonka @mpuncel while upgrading our custom plane to use code from this PR, i came across io.envoyproxy.controlplane.cache.NodeGroup interface, which has 2 abstract methods:

          @Override
          public String hash(io.envoyproxy.envoy.api.v2.core.Node node) {
          ...
          }

          @Override
          public String hash(io.envoyproxy.envoy.config.core.v3.Node node) {
         ...
          }

So clients of the library will have to override both of those methods which is not optimal. Wdyt?

slonka · 2020-09-15T18:17:08Z

@slonka @mpuncel while upgrading our custom plane to use code from this PR, i came across io.envoyproxy.controlplane.cache.NodeGroup interface, which has 2 abstract methods:
          @Override
          public String hash(io.envoyproxy.envoy.api.v2.core.Node node) {
          ...
          }

          @Override
          public String hash(io.envoyproxy.envoy.config.core.v3.Node node) {
         ...
          }
So clients of the library will have to override both of those methods which is not optimal. Wdyt?

I don't see any other way to distinguish between v2 and v3 node, if we want to still allow SimpleCache to serve them. If we split it I think we would have to provide a separate cache for v2 and v3. Can you share an example of how would you do it differently?

nezdolik · 2020-09-15T21:55:30Z

@slonka if we "force" clients of the library to implement both v2 and v3 methods, it means that users cannot do v3 migration in one go and will have to do extra step by end of Q4 after the library removes all usages of v2 and is released with breaking changes. If this is acceptable and the PR intends to introduce v3 support with some mixed versioning in api then i guess code is fine as it is.
Otherwise, we could either duplicate the code to support exclusively v3 version or benefit from Java 8 innovation and introduce default implementations of those methods in interface, eg:

interface NodeGroup {

          default public String hash(io.envoyproxy.envoy.api.v2.core.Node node) {
           throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
          }

          default public String hash(io.envoyproxy.envoy.config.core.v3.Node node) {
           throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
          }
}

Would be great to hear more opinions on this.

slonka · 2020-09-16T07:26:28Z

@mpuncel nad I decided to be explicit when it comes to the v2/v3 methods and removed "default" implementations (see comment and code). As an end user I'd rather know at the compilation step that if I do not implement this, turning on V3 will cause problems.

@pbetkier any thoughts on this?

nezdolik · 2020-09-16T09:32:58Z

@slonka got it, was just thinking that there are users (like us) who would rather fully move on v3 with no need to maintain v2 code in their control plane.
I've also tested this PR with our setup, everything works well so far.

pbetkier · 2020-09-16T15:20:14Z

I agree that it's better to fail at compile time than discover problems at startup. Default methods could cause the latter. On the other hand, I think removing the implementation for a method that no longer exists in the future interface will be rather straightforward to do by the clients – again, the compiler will show what's to change. That's how I see the tradeoff, I can be convinced though.

I didn't dig into the code enough to know if duplicate code approach is feasible. If it is then we could do it this way.

slonka · 2020-09-17T07:36:03Z

Otherwise, we could either duplicate the code to support exclusively v3 version

I just want to make sure I understand that completely. Ok, so during the migration period when some Envoy's are v2 and some are v3 we would translate the v2 node to v3 type? Or do you want to have different caches for v2 and v3 nodes?

nezdolik · 2020-09-17T08:35:47Z

@slonka thinking about it once again, looks like is a good overall tradeoff (not to duplicate caches for library maintainers + removing one method for library clients some time before end of Q4).
I could have been too focused on our use case (we are going to upgrade entire fleet in one go, no mixed Envoy versions running).

slonka · 2020-09-17T13:49:55Z

Pinging @sschepens once more as the author of #139 if you want to take a look. If there are no objections I'm merging and releasing it on Friday afternoon / Monday morning (probably Monday morning)

slonka · 2020-09-22T06:20:15Z

I was not able to release this version due to failing "WarmingClusters" integration tests. People who want to use this version now should use the snapshot version while I fix the tests in another PR.

slonka · 2020-09-24T12:44:03Z

Released under 0.1.24

mpuncel force-pushed the mpuncel/v3-support branch from 58c2018 to 47f9e14 Compare July 27, 2020 13:56

mpuncel commented Jul 27, 2020

View reviewed changes

mpuncel mentioned this pull request Jul 27, 2020

Envoy v3 API support #126

Closed

mpuncel force-pushed the mpuncel/v3-support branch 3 times, most recently from 374c0f9 to 2610f3f Compare July 27, 2020 14:48

mpuncel force-pushed the mpuncel/v3-support branch from 2610f3f to d1de621 Compare July 28, 2020 13:52

mpuncel force-pushed the mpuncel/v3-support branch from d1de621 to cae4ebc Compare July 28, 2020 14:38

mpuncel commented Jul 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

mpuncel mentioned this pull request Jul 28, 2020

Xds v3 #139

Closed

slonka added a commit to allegro/envoy-control that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2020

Dry run of v3 update, to run publish to maven local snapshot version …

8f8fa29

…of EC from github.com/envoyproxy/java-control-plane/pull/140/

slonka requested changes Aug 6, 2020

View reviewed changes

pbetkier suggested changes Aug 6, 2020

View reviewed changes

mpuncel added 5 commits August 8, 2020 19:56

PR comments: move type URLs to their own static class. Fix broken jav…

f080a92

…adoc link. Use method overloading instead of different names for v2 vs v3 node hash Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

PR comments: use package names to differentiate v2 and v3 cache types

45b7fba

Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

put tests in v2 and v3 packages

6de5cbb

Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

rename v2 onStreamRequest callback, remove default implementation

243e2cd

Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

rename onStreamRequest on DiscoveryServerCallbacks

3a07190

Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

mpuncel force-pushed the mpuncel/v3-support branch from 85864e8 to 3a07190 Compare August 8, 2020 23:56

DRY most of the DiscoveryServerCallbacks implementations in integrati…

9a4e113

…on tests Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

mpuncel added 2 commits August 22, 2020 19:49

make v3 transport integration tests also use v3 resource version

306aa33

Note that there are not tests that cover a different transport version from resource version in the interest of not doubling the number of integration tests. Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

update README and add v2 -> v3 guide

45f67aa

Signed-off-by: Michael Puncel <[email protected]>

mpuncel force-pushed the mpuncel/v3-support branch from 0048bec to 45f67aa Compare August 23, 2020 00:11

nezdolik mentioned this pull request Sep 14, 2020

Try fix test for PR https://github.com/envoyproxy/java-control-plane/pull/140 #142

Closed

slonka approved these changes Sep 21, 2020

View reviewed changes

slonka merged commit a75b971 into envoyproxy:master Sep 21, 2020


		import static io.envoyproxy.controlplane.cache.Resources.V2_TYPE_URLS;

		public class V2SimpleCache<T> extends SimpleCache<T, V2Snapshot> {

	* {@link NodeGroup#hashv3(Node)} or {@link NodeGroup#hashV2(io.envoyproxy.envoy.api.v2.core.Node)}.
	* {@link NodeGroup#hashV3(Node)} or {@link NodeGroup#hashV2(io.envoyproxy.envoy.api.v2.core.Node)}.

Add v3 xDS support #140

Add v3 xDS support #140

Uh oh!

Conversation

mpuncel commented Jul 27, 2020

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!

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!

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mpuncel commented Jul 27, 2020

Uh oh!

mpuncel commented Jul 27, 2020

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

slonka commented Jul 29, 2020

Uh oh!

mpuncel commented Jul 29, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

slonka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

slonka Aug 5, 2020 • 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!

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pbetkier left a comment

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mpuncel commented Aug 8, 2020

Uh oh!

slonka commented Aug 18, 2020

Uh oh!

slonka commented Aug 20, 2020

Uh oh!

slonka commented Aug 21, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mpuncel commented Aug 22, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mpuncel commented Aug 23, 2020

mpuncel commented Jul 29, 2020 •

edited

Loading

slonka Aug 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

slonka commented Aug 21, 2020 •

edited

Loading

mpuncel commented Aug 22, 2020 •

edited

Loading

rene-m-hernandez commented Sep 2, 2020 •

edited

Loading

slonka commented Sep 8, 2020 •

edited

Loading

slonka commented Sep 9, 2020 •

edited

Loading

slonka commented Sep 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

nezdolik commented Sep 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

nezdolik commented Sep 16, 2020 •

edited

Loading