You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As a follow up to #1364 we should update conformance tests to assert that each condition's observeredGeneration is incremented to match the resource's metadata.generation
This is important because as updates occur to a resource's spec block (which increments metadata.generation) it implies the conditions are stale until the controller acknowledges them.
Also the language in the GEP is a bit confusing
observedGeneration is an optional field that sets what the metadata.generation field was when the controller last saw a resource. Note that this is optional in the struct, but is required for Gateway API conditions. This will be enforced in the conformance tests in the future.
I would probably just state that observedGeneration is required to be set by gateway implementations and ignore mentioning that there's an +optional marker
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yeah, reading it back, that is confusing, thanks. I'll do a small PR to update that. But agreed that we should check observedGeneration matches correctly as well.
As a follow up to #1364 we should update conformance tests to assert that each condition's
observeredGeneration
is incremented to match the resource'smetadata.generation
This is important because as updates occur to a resource's
spec
block (which incrementsmetadata.generation
) it implies the conditions are stale until the controller acknowledges them.Also the language in the GEP is a bit confusing
I would probably just state that
observedGeneration
is required to be set by gateway implementations and ignore mentioning that there's an+optional
markerThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: