Requiring "Programmed" condition in conformance tests

[robscott]

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

What this PR does / why we need it:
This adds a requirement in conformance tests that Gateways must be "Programmed" (previously this was just "Accepted"). Note that this only covers the top level "Programmed" condition, not each Listener.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1722

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Conformance: Gateways must publish the "Programmed" condition.

[robscott]

I believe that every time we make this check in conformance tests, we're also expecting the Gateway(s) to be programmed. If I've missed anything, let me know. I'm going to put a hold on this because I'd like to get sign off from a few people before merging. I know this will completely break conformance tests for some implementations because it's a change at such a high level.

/hold
/cc @arkodg @howardjohn @mlavacca @skriss @sunjayBhatia

[k8s-ci-robot]

@robscott: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: arkodg.

Note that only kubernetes-sigs members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

I believe that every time we make this check in conformance tests, we're also expecting the Gateway(s) to be programmed. If I've missed anything, let me know. I'm going to put a hold on this because I'd like to get sign off from a few people before merging. I know this will completely break conformance tests for some implementations because it's a change at such a high level.

/hold
/cc @arkodg @howardjohn @mlavacca @skriss @sunjayBhatia

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/test-infra repository.

[arkodg]

@robscott from a quick glance it looks like this case is being addressed in Envoy Gateway here
you could try testing it out using steps outlined here

[shaneutt]

This seems like the right change to me, but definitely would like to invite some more people to check this out before we merge it.

[mlavacca]

This change looks good to me 👍

[skriss]

Thanks @robscott, this mostly looks good from Contour's perspective; unfortunately it's causing us to start failing the gateway-observed-generation-bump test because we don't yet support the addition of the second HTTP Listener port, but that's an issue for us rather than the conformance test.

[robscott]

Thanks everyone! Sounds like this is safe enough to remove the hold. Next LGTM will merge this.

/hold cancel

[shaneutt]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mlavacca, robscott, shaneutt

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• conformance/OWNERS [robscott,shaneutt]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment