Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Incorrect status.condition Message When `spec.limil is Missing in RLP #1023

Closed
jsmolar opened this issue Nov 14, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1024
Closed

Incorrect status.condition Message When `spec.limil is Missing in RLP #1023

jsmolar opened this issue Nov 14, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1024
Assignees

Comments

@jsmolar
Copy link
Contributor

jsmolar commented Nov 14, 2024

When a RateLimitPolicy (RLP) is created without specifying spec.limi, the status.condition shows the following message:

- lastTransitionTime: '2024-11-14T12:54:54Z'
  message: RateLimitPolicy is not in the path to any existing routes
  reason: Unknown
  status: 'False'
  type: Enforced

The status.condition should display a more relevant message indicating the missing spec.limi field, instead of suggesting that the policy is not tied to any route.

@Boomatang
Copy link
Contributor

What do you believe would be the correct error message in this case? I also going to ask should a user be allowed to create a RateLimitPolicy without specifying the spec.limit?

@jsmolar
Copy link
Contributor Author

jsmolar commented Nov 14, 2024

@Boomatang I think you should spec.limit should be required (spec.targetRef is). If not, RLP should not show error message.

@Boomatang Boomatang self-assigned this Nov 14, 2024
@Boomatang Boomatang moved this from In Progress to Ready For Review in Kuadrant Nov 14, 2024
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Ready For Review to Done in Kuadrant Nov 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants