PR for SRVKS-1174: Document how users can utilize full duplex support for http1 #76331
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
|
@kaldesai: This pull request references SRVKS-1174 which is a valid jira issue. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
/label serverless |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
size/S
|
@kaldesai: This pull request references SRVKS-1174 which is a valid jira issue. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
@kaldesai: This pull request references SRVKS-1174 which is a valid jira issue. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
size/M
|
@kaldesai: This pull request references SRVKS-1174 which is a valid jira issue. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/label serverless |
|
@kaldesai: This pull request references SRVKS-1174 which is a valid jira issue. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
@skonto is now ready for review. Can you please take a look and let me know? |
| name: example-service | ||
| namespace: default | ||
| annotations: | ||
| features.knative.dev/http-full-duplex: "Enabled" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The annotation should be on the revision template, not Service,
this was fixed upstream in knative/docs#5839 (see the updated example there)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also the docs are here: https://knative.dev/docs/serving/services/http-protocol/#http1-full-duplex-support-per-workload
|
LGTM in general I would add a pointer to the related Golang issue so people know when to use that. Copying from the upstream docs.
|
|
/label peer-review-needed |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
peer-review-needed
adellape
added
the
peer-review-in-progress
|
|
||
| You can enable the HTTP/1 full duplex support for a service by configuring the `features.knative.dev/http-full-duplex` annotation. | ||
|
|
||
| NOTE: Verify your HTTP clients before enabling, as older clients may not provide support for HTTP/1 full duplex. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Style guide for admonitions
- [ISG] Use "earlier" for "older"
- [ISG] Use "might" for "may"
| NOTE: Verify your HTTP clients before enabling, as older clients may not provide support for HTTP/1 full duplex. | |
| [NOTE] | |
| ==== | |
| Verify your HTTP clients before enabling, as earlier version clients might not provide support for HTTP/1 full duplex. | |
| ==== |
| - Name: HTTP configuration | ||
| Dir: http-configuration | ||
| Topics: | ||
| - Name: Global HTTPS redirection | ||
| File: https-redirect-global | ||
| - Name: HTTPS redirection per service | ||
| File: https-redirect-per-service | ||
| - Name: Full duplex support for HTTP/1 | ||
| File: http1-full-duplex-support |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this need to be a full subdirectory? Especially considering each of the 3 assemblies only have 1 module in each (with no TOCs).
Could this instead just be a single new "HTTP configuration" assembly that include::s the 3 modules (the 2 old ones and the 1 new one)? I feel like that would still satisfy the Jira ticket's request to "create another section".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it does need to be a full subdirectory as each assemblies are going to expand by the upcoming next release and will contain the multiple modules. That is why I created like that. :)
adellape
added
peer-review-done
kaldesai
force-pushed
the
SRVKS-1174-Serverless
branch
from
41c165c
to
56d11dd
Compare
|
@kaldesai: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
/label merge-review-needed |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
merge-review-needed
mburke5678
added
merge-review-in-progress
|
@kaldesai I think this PR is OK to merge. When you are ready, remove the do-not-merge label and let us know. |
kaldesai
changed the title
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
@mburke5678 I have removed the do-not-merge label, you can go ahead and merge this. Thank you! :) |
1 similar comment
|
@mburke5678 I have removed the do-not-merge label, you can go ahead and merge this. Thank you! :) |
|
/cherrypick serverless-docs-1.33 |
|
/cherrypick serverless-docs-1.32 |
|
@mburke5678: new pull request created: #76865 In response to this:
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. |
|
@mburke5678: new pull request created: #76866 In response to this:
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. |
Affected versions for cherry-picking:
serverless-docs-1.33serverless-docs-1.32Tracking JIRA: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SRVKS-1174
Doc preview:
I have created an HTTP configuration section, which now includes: