ps: fix display of exposed ports #24337
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
openshift-ci
bot
added
release-note
approved
edsantiago
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2024
| @@ -396,12 +396,20 @@ var _ = Describe("Podman run networking", func() { | |||
| name := "testctr" | |||
| session := podmanTest.Podman([]string{"create", "-t", "--expose", "80", "-p", "80", "--name", name, ALPINE, "/bin/sh"}) | |||
| session.WaitWithDefaultTimeout() | |||
| Expect(session).Should(ExitCleanly()) | |||
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: edsantiago, Luap99 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
mheon
reviewed
Oct 23, 2024
| session.WaitWithDefaultTimeout() | ||
| Expect(session).Should(ExitCleanly()) | ||
| // This must use Equal() to ensure we do not see the extra ", 80/tcp" from the exposed port | ||
| Expect(session.OutputToString()).To(Equal("0.0.0.0:" + hostPort + "->80/tcp")) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we have a test with a port range?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added sufficient unit tests IMO, but I can add more int test if wanted. I do agree that expose with ranges seems to have very little e2e tests (one, two if we could the ones form the image)
This can never included a comma in the protocol so it just complicated things for no reason, we never needed this and commit edc3dc5 already ensures this cannot happen. Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <pholzing@redhat.com>
This fixes two problems, first if a port is published and exposed it should not be shown twice. It is enough to show the published one. Second, if there is a huge range the ports were no grouped causing the output to be unreadable basically. Now we group exposed ports like we do with the normal published ports. Fixes containers#23317 Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <pholzing@redhat.com>
Luap99
force-pushed
the
expose-ports-ps
branch
from
f4eee7f to
0cdb9b3
Compare
|
LGTM |
|
/lgtm |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes two problems, first if a port is published and exposed it
should not be shown twice. It is enough to show the published one.
Second, if there is a huge range the ports were no grouped causing the
output to be unreadable basically. Now we group exposed ports like we do
with the normal published ports.
Fixes #23317
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?