Conversation
1353726 to
f53dc25
Compare
ndhanushkodi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Amazing!! Left a few comments!
This could definitely come in a future PR, but could we add a case for testing with a config entry (deploy like static-server1 and static-server2 and do a splitter between them) to the acceptance test?
|
|
||
| if c.flagUpstreamEnvoyID == "" && c.flagUpstreamIP == "" { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("-upstream-envoy-id OR -upstream-ip is required.\n Please run `consul troubleshoot upstreams` to find the corresponding upstream.") | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we validate that exactly one or the other is provided also? That way it's known that both aren't required early on. cc @malizz this would be good to add the the consul CLI as well if it's not already there!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I have it:
None:
$ ./cli/bin/consul-k8s troubleshoot proxy -pod static-client-5644c6f9c9-rl8kf
! Invalid argument: -upstream-envoy-id OR -upstream-ip is required.
Please runconsul troubleshoot upstreamsto find the corresponding upstream.
Both:
$ ./cli/bin/consul-k8s troubleshoot proxy -pod static-client-5644c6f9c9-rl8kf -upstream-ip 10.96.217.21 -upstream-envoy-id 1234
! Invalid argument: -upstream-envoy-id OR -upstream-ip is required.
Please runconsul troubleshoot upstreamsto find the corresponding upstream.
… for upstream-envoy-id and upstream-ip
- Add troubleshooting commands for 'upstream' and 'proxy' to allow troubleshooting of envoy config.
- Add troubleshooting commands for 'upstream' and 'proxy' to allow troubleshooting of envoy config.
Things to still do:
Changes proposed in this PR:
How I've tested this PR:
How I expect reviewers to test this PR:
Checklist: