feat: add centralized certificate management api #16132
Conversation
thalesmg
force-pushed
the
20251013-m-tls-central
branch
3 times, most recently
from
c8f51c6 to
d769474
Compare
thalesmg
force-pushed
the
20251013-m-tls-central
branch
3 times, most recently
from
4b6f15c to
e2fa9d5
Compare
thalesmg
force-pushed
the
20251013-m-tls-central
branch
from
e2fa9d5 to
a894670
Compare
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #16132 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 84.73% 84.72% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 1151 1154 +3
Lines 79544 79705 +161
==========================================
+ Hits 67401 67528 +127
- Misses 12143 12177 +34 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| } | ||
| }. | ||
|
|
||
| fields(file_in) -> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe provide multipart/form-data endpoint?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I followed the original proposal which is designed as a one-by-one upload. multipart/form-data would be useful if we wanted to upload multiple files at once, right?
@zmstone WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, good point.
one can upload single file using multipart, no problem.
e.g. if a cert is expire, one can just upload the cert file without having to re-upload key.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
e.g. if a cert is expire, one can just upload the cert file without having to re-upload key.
the current design of uploading one-by-one already allows for this, without need for multipart. 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's good to have multipart upload so one curl command or one request from dashboard can be used to upload multiple files.
I mean supporting multi-part does not mean one cannot upload single file anymore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
added multi-part support in the last two commits
|
This a great base, however not very useful without supporting it from SSL options config schema Will you add it in a followup PR ? |
Yes, that's the idea. Instead of having one big PR that is both harder to read and requires a lot of rework due to potential change requests, it felt better to first check the API is acceptable before building upon it. |
| handle_list_bundles(Namespace) -> | ||
| case emqx_conf_certs:list_bundles(Namespace) of | ||
| {ok, Bundles} -> | ||
| Res = bundles_out(Bundles), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
escape namespace to list, and unescape before return?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there's no need to escape/unescape namespace here.
4 participants
Part of https://emqx.atlassian.net/browse/EMQX-14804
Release version: 6.1.0
Summary
PR Checklist
changes/ee/(feat|perf|fix|breaking)-<PR-id>.en.mdfiles