Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Align documentation about HTTPRouteTimeouts.BackendRequest timeout scope #3462

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Align documentation about HTTPRouteTimeouts.BackendRequest timeout scope #3462

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+9 −9

Conversation

rtribotte
Copy link
Contributor

What type of PR is this?

/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR aligns the HTTPRouteTimeouts.BackendRequest timeout documentation.
It is stated in the GEP 1742 sequence diagram illustrating the timeouts boundaries that the HTTPRouteTimeouts.BackendRequest timeout runs until the responses headers are received:

gateway-api/geps/gep-1742/index.md

Lines 358 to 360 in f735045

U->>P: Starts Response
U->>P: Finishes Headers
note right of P: timeouts.backendRequest end time

The documentation for the CRD was mentioning a timeout running until the end of the response, which is not consistent and this PR aims to align expectations.

On the side, in the GEP 1742, the Traefik mermaid sequence diagram is adjusted to reflect more accurately the actual supported timeouts.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Align documentation about HTTPRouteTimeouts.BackendRequest timeout scope.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/documentation Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation. labels Nov 20, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rtribotte
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign thockin for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested a review from candita November 20, 2024 16:06
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Nov 20, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. kind/gep PRs related to Gateway Enhancement Proposal(GEP) needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 20, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @rtribotte. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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-sigs/prow repository.

@youngnick
Copy link
Contributor

/ok-to-test

This seems reasonable, but I'll need to have a think about it in case it counts as a breaking change.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Nov 21, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 14, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

PR needs rebase.

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-sigs/prow repository.

robscott
robscott reviewed Feb 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@robscott robscott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @rtribotte! The Traefik related changes to the GEP look great, thanks for the corrections. Want to get more feedback on the changes to the timeout definition.

/hold

apis/v1/httproute_types.go
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ type HTTPRouteTimeouts struct {

// BackendRequest specifies a timeout for an individual request from the gateway
// to a backend. This covers the time from when the request first starts being
// sent from the gateway to when the full response has been received from the backend.
// sent from the gateway to when the response headers have been received from the backend.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems like a significant change, would appreciate some additional reviews on this.

/cc @youngnick @howardjohn @arkodg @kate-osborn @mlavacca

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IIUC this breaks Envoy implementations?

Copy link
Contributor

@youngnick youngnick Feb 18, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, in Envoy implementations, there's no timeout for the end of the request, only the end of the headers. So this would not be possible to fulfill in any Envoy-based implementation.

From the update to the Traefik timeouts, I can see that Traefik doesn't support an end-of-headers timeout, which puts us in a tricky position (and is one of the reasons why this GEP took so long to get done).

Edit: I was looking at the request timeouts, not the response ones, sigh.

I think in this case, the godoc is the correct behavior, and we should be changing the diagram to match the godoc.

(In general, for Gateway API, the godoc is the canonical location for specification things, so if there's a mistake, we fix other things first, as the godoc is part of the stable version).

This field is now Standard and so this is definitely a breaking change that we can't do without an API revision.

Sorry @rtribotte this is exactly the sort of thing I was worried about when I said I needed to do a closer read.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't it the opposite? Envoy can do "end of response" not "end of response headers"

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🤦 Looking at the wrong timeout section. Let me edit my comment.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

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

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

In response to this:

This seems like a significant change, would appreciate some additional reviews on this.

/cc @youngnick @howardjohn @arkodg @kate-osborn @mlavacca

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-sigs/prow repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@robscott robscott robscott left review comments

@candita candita Awaiting requested review from candita

@mlavacca mlavacca Awaiting requested review from mlavacca

@youngnick youngnick Awaiting requested review from youngnick

@howardjohn howardjohn Awaiting requested review from howardjohn

@arkodg arkodg Awaiting requested review from arkodg

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. kind/documentation Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation. kind/gep PRs related to Gateway Enhancement Proposal(GEP) needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@rtribotte @k8s-ci-robot @youngnick @robscott @howardjohn