Feature azurefirewall #201
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Khosrow Moossavi <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: shreya <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: shreya <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: shreya <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: shreya <[email protected]>
ShreyNamdeo
force-pushed
the
feature-azurefirewall
branch
from
89e5d9b to
d77f8e2
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for working on this @escortnotice! I have added some review comments below. It looks like the resource schema needs to be cleaned up some and tests need to be added. Also, I think you may have accidentally included an already existing commit in your history. Let me know if you have any questions :)
apis/network/v1alpha3/types.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| Spec AzureFirewallSpec `json:"spec"` | ||
| Status AzureFirewallStatus `json:"status,omitempty"` | ||
| ///Properties SecurityGroupPropertiesFormat `json:"properties,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like this needs to be removed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Delete the commented code at line 246
apis/network/v1alpha3/types.go
Outdated
| // +kubebuilder:printcolumn:name="SYNCED",type="string",JSONPath=".status.conditions[?(@.type=='Synced')].status" | ||
| // +kubebuilder:printcolumn:name="STATE",type="string",JSONPath=".status.state" | ||
| // +kubebuilder:printcolumn:name="LOCATION",type="string",JSONPath=".spec.location" | ||
| // +kubebuilder:printcolumn:name="RECLAIM-POLICY",type="string",JSONPath=".spec.reclaimPolicy" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nitpick: reclaimPolicy is deprecated so we probably shouldn't show it here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed reclaim policy declaration code.
apis/network/v1alpha3/types.go
Outdated
| // Location - Resource location. | ||
| Location string `json:"location"` | ||
|
|
||
| //AzureFirewallPropertiesFormat - Properties of AzureFirewall |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| //AzureFirewallPropertiesFormat - Properties of AzureFirewall | |
| // AzureFirewallPropertiesFormat - Properties of AzureFirewall |
| Location string `json:"location"` | ||
|
|
||
| //AzureFirewallPropertiesFormat - Properties of AzureFirewall | ||
| AzureFirewallPropertiesFormat `json:"properties,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this is optional it should have // +optional
There was a problem hiding this comment.
'AzureFirewallPropertiesFormat' is not optional.
| Etag string `json:"etag,omitempty"` | ||
|
|
||
| // ID - Resource ID. | ||
| ID string `json:"id,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
// +optional plus *string. Can you actually set the ID at creation time?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you please give us a reference code or explain the changes needed as we are not aware.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Crossplane managed resource API conventions doc is a good resource that discusses these topics. The convention is to have pointer types for optional fields, and to use the // +optional marker comment for them.
apis/network/v1alpha3/types.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| // Type - READ-ONLY; Resource type. | ||
| Type string `json:"type,omitempty"` | ||
| // Location - Resource location. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // Location - Resource location. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed extra comment from the code.
apis/network/v1alpha3/types.go
Outdated
| // Name - READ-ONLY; Resource name. | ||
| Name string `json:"name,omitempty"` | ||
|
|
||
| // Type - READ-ONLY; Resource type. | ||
| Type string `json:"type,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These should be in status if read only
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to specify these properties while creating firewall , thus we kept them in Spec and we have removed the READ-ONLY signature from comment.
pkg/clients/network/azurefirewall.go
Outdated
| Location: azure.ToStringPtr(v.Spec.Location), | ||
| Tags: azure.ToStringPtrMap(v.Spec.Tags), | ||
| AzureFirewallPropertiesFormat: &networkmgmt.AzureFirewallPropertiesFormat{ | ||
| //ApplicationRuleCollections: nil, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have removed this commented code.
| if az.Name != nil { | ||
| azurefirewall.UpdateAzureFirewallStatusFromAzure(v, az) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do any spec fields need to be late initialized also?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please explain the statement we did not understand the context.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Late initialization is the process of setting spec fields that are not provided by the user when they create the resource, but are set to default values by Azure. Here is an example of doing this: https://github.com/crossplane/provider-azure/blob/45f75a573ad4cc1727cfcee86d616b4892a11f74/pkg/clients/database/mysql.go#L306
| // +kubebuilder:printcolumn:name="AGE",type="date",JSONPath=".metadata.creationTimestamp" | ||
| // +kubebuilder:subresource:status | ||
| // +kubebuilder:resource:scope=Cluster,categories={crossplane,managed,azure} | ||
| type AzureFirewall struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since this is a new resource it should be introduced at v1alpha1 version
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the existing codebase we can see v1beta1 or v1alpha3 outside the network folder and v1alpha3 inside network folder , so do you suggest us to create v1alpha1 module also , if so we will need some direction or help from you as we are not aware of the process for doing that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ShreyNamdeo yes creating a new package would be appropriate here 👍
Description of your changes
Create a Azure Firewall through crossplane and add NAT and Network Rules to restrict traffic.
Issue: #198
I have:
make reviewable testto ensure this PR is ready for review.How has this code been tested
This code has been tested manually, using the configuration files in the "example" folder which can referred for the same.