feat: traffic split #308
feat: traffic split #308
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #308 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 53.00% 54.26% +1.26%
==========================================
Files 33 34 +1
Lines 2394 2460 +66
==========================================
+ Hits 1269 1335 +66
- Misses 965 966 +1
+ Partials 160 159 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| if len(backends) > 0 { | ||
| // Use the first backend as the default backend in Route, | ||
| // others will be configured in traffic-split plugin. | ||
| backend = backends[0] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Confused here, backend will be covered if backends is not empty ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, already check the exclusive relationship before this, when backends not empty, backend is nil.
| } | ||
| ups.FullName = apisixv1.ComposeUpstreamName(namespace, svcName, svcPort) | ||
| ups.Name = ups.FullName | ||
| ups.ID = id.GenID(ups.FullName) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If upstream.ID is nil, what is the behavior of the controller ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Update of Upstream will fail in APISIX side since the necessary ID is not provided by the caller.
Please answer these questions before submitting a pull request
Why submit this pull request?
Bugfix
New feature provided
Improve performance
Backport patches
Related issues
Support Traffic Split in ApisixRoute #289
New feature or improvement
This PR supports the traffic split in ApisixRoute.
Backport patches
Why need to backport?
Source branch
Related commits and pull requests
Target branch