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.

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

Drop port 8443 as a reverse proxy #496

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 22, 2024
Merged

Conversation

ehelms
Copy link
Member

@ehelms ehelms commented Oct 14, 2024

No description provided.

@ehelms
Copy link
Member Author

ehelms commented Oct 15, 2024

Since we are making a backwards incompatible change, do we want to drop reverse_proxy_backend_protocol as a parameter as well? We've been operating with http/2 for a bit now.

@ekohl
Copy link
Member

ekohl commented Oct 15, 2024

I'm not sure I intended that as a temporary parameter. While we don't intend typical users to change this, I'd still like to keep the options open to tune this in some edge cases.

@ehelms
Copy link
Member Author

ehelms commented Oct 22, 2024

I'm not sure I intended that as a temporary parameter. While we don't intend typical users to change this, I'd still like to keep the options open to tune this in some edge cases.

Fair enough.

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
define foreman_proxy_content::reverse_proxy (
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we still need this as a define? Taking a step back, let's look at the whole picture.

This now defines a vhost, but Pulp can also define a vhost. So can Foreman. What this then adds is the RHSM bits, which we also do in puppet-katello.

Perhaps we should capture this as a future refactor, but I feel there's room to improve on alignment here.

On the other hand, they are also conceptually different: with puppet-katello it's actual application code handling things while with puppet-foreman_proxy_content it's forwarded to the real application.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll take a note to have a look at re-factoring this week. That's always a good idea. I think the right answer is to do that after we've done the minimal change to extract this functionality first.

Copy link
Member

@ekohl ekohl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this is OK now, but if we refactor it to a class we can actually use Hiera to tune things (like proxy_pass_params). Since this is backwards incompatible, I think it's a good chance.

@ehelms ehelms merged commit 3ad8c1b into theforeman:master Oct 22, 2024
11 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants