Add 'next' option to forward plugin #6681
Conversation
chrisohaver
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! I think next might be a better name for the option from an intuitive sense.
There is the history of the external plugin being called alternate ... and before that I think it was called fallback, but I dont think its important from a clarity pov to maintain the name going forward.
What do you think?
Allows the forward plugin to execute the next plugin based on the return code. Similar to the externally mainted alternate plugin https://github.com/coredns/alternate Based on the idea of chrisohaver@ in #6549 (comment) Also incoperated the request to rename `alternate` to `next` as an option I am having issues adding a proper test for functionality. Primarily, I do not know the code base enough and having multiple `dnstest.NewServer` with ResponseWriter does not work. From my testing these are "Singletons'' and only the last defined response writer is used for all servers Signed-off-by: Jasper Bernhardt <[email protected]>
Hi, thank you for the review and the suggestion. I do not have a strong feeling about naming. Would you mind taking another look @chrisohaver |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #6681 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 55.70% 59.20% +3.50%
==========================================
Files 224 252 +28
Lines 10016 13485 +3469
==========================================
+ Hits 5579 7984 +2405
- Misses 3978 4908 +930
- Partials 459 593 +134 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@chrisohaver, thank you for the review and for the merge (and of course, thanks to @dihmandrake for the PR). |
|
It will be in the next release - date TBD. |
Any idea when this will be? |
Allows the forward plugin to execute the next plugin based on the return code. Similar to the externally mainted alternate plugin https://github.com/coredns/alternate
Based on the idea of chrisohaver@ in #6549 (comment)
I am having issues adding a proper test for functionality. Primarily, I do not know the code base enough and having multiple
dnstest.NewServerwith ResponseWriter does not work. From my testing these are "Singletons'' and only the last defined response writer is used for all servers1. Why is this pull request needed and what does it do?
This PR introduces an alternate option within the CoreDNS forward plugin, eliminating the need for separate compiled plugins. This option proves particularly beneficial for Kubernetes cluster operators managing internal DNS servers. These servers resolve specific domains locally, ensuring requests remain within the designated network or cluster. This approach enhances fault tolerance and serves other purposes. Additionally, the internal DNS servers may leverage tools like cert-manager, which necessitates external TXT record generation and resolution for the DNS-01 challenge mechanism.
The new alternate option within the forward plugin allows resolving entries exclusively available on public DNS servers. This enables mechanisms like cert-manager to function correctly without requiring operators to maintain self-compiled and hosted versions of CoreDNS. This approach simplifies deployment and maintenance while ensuring proper functionality.
2. Which issues (if any) are related?
PR: #6549
3. Which documentation changes (if any) need to be made?
Added as part of this PR
4. Does this introduce a backward incompatible change or deprecation?
No