GEP-1709: Conformance Profiles¶

Issue: #1709
Status: Prototyping

TLDR¶

Add high level profiles for conformance tests which implementations can select when running the conformance test suite. Also add opt-in automated conformance reporting to the conformance test suite to report conformance results back to the Gateway API project and receive recognition (e.g. badges).

TODO¶

The following are items that we intend to resolve before we consider this GEP implementable:

We still need to sort out how we're going to display conformance results. Badges are well and good, but we also want some kind of summarized display of any given implementation's conformance results somewhere on our upstream website (so far the thought has been the implementations page). We should look for prior art in Kubernetes SIGs and also reach out to some frontend developers to come up with something really solid prior to moving to implementable.
We need to think about how we're going to highlight and report on the results for experimental features, and make sure this is explicitly written out.
We are gathering feedback from SIG Arch. We need to let this soak for some time, bring up the topic at SIG Arch community meetings, and generally make changes according to their feedback before considering this implementable.
Right now we've said that GatewayClass and Gateway tests will be implicitly added to testing profiles were they are referenced, but we're not sure yet whether this is going to work out for ReferenceGrant as we know of at least one implementation that explicitly doesn't support it. It's possible ReferenceGrant is just a special case for a profile we'll have to allow opting into or out of, or maybe some other optional way to do this but still be conformant. Needs to be resolved before we move to implementable as ReferenceGrant is already in BETA and is being considered in other areas of Kubernetes.

Goals¶

Add high level profiles which downstream implementations can subscribe to in order to run tests for the associated supported feature sets.
Add a reporting mechanism where conformance results can be reported back to the Gateway API project and provide "badges" to visibly decorate the implementations as conformant according to their profiles.
Expand conformance testing documentation significantly so that it becomes the "landing zone" for new prospective implementations and provides a clear and iterative process for how to get started implementing Gateway API support.

Non-Goals¶

We want to avoid adding any infrastructure for the reporting mechanism if feasible.
For this iteration we don't want to add configuration files for conformance tests, instead leaving that to future iterations and working on the raw machinery here (see alternatives considered).
For this iteration we don't want to add container images for conformance test runs, instead leaving that to future iterations (see alternatives considered.

Introduction¶

Since our conformance test suite was conceived of it's been our desire to provide simple high level profiles that downstream implementations can subscribe to.

Today we have SupportedFeatures which get us some of what we want in terms of easily configuring the conformance test suite, but in this GEP we will describe taking that a step further (and a level higher) to create named profiles which indicate a "level of conformance" which implementations can prove they satisfy and receive certification for.

An API will be provided as the format for conformance test reports. We will provide tooling to assist with the reporting and certification process of submitting those reports and displaying the results.

API¶

The API for conformance profiles will include an API resource called ConformanceReport which will be at the center of a workflow that implementations can opt into to generate and submit those resources.

The workflow implementers will follow will include the following high-level steps:

select a profile
integrate tests in the downstream project
report results and get certified

The goal is to make selecting a conformance profile as simple and automatic of a process as feasible and support both the existing command line integration approach (e.g. go test) as well as a Golang approach using the conformance suite as a library.

Profiles¶

"Profiles" are effectively categories which represent the high level grouping of tests related to some feature (or feature set) of Gateway API. When conformance is reported using one of these profiles extra features can be covered according to support levels:

core
extended

NOTE: implementation-specific doesn't really have much in the way of tests today, but it is something users want to be able to display. We leave door open for it later and mention it in the alternatives considered section below.

We will start with the following named profiles:

HTTP
TLSPassthrough

These profiles correspond with *Route type APIs that we currently have tests for. As the tests roll in, we'll also eventually have:

UDP
TCP
GRPC

NOTE: In time we may have higher level groupings, like Layer4 (which would include at least TCP and UDP) but feedback from the community has been strong for a preference on the *Route level (see the alternatives considered for some more notes on this) for the moment.

NOTE: APIs that are referenced to or by *Route APIs will be tested as a part of a profile. For instance, running the HTTP profile will also run tests for GatewayClass and Gateway implicitly as these are required components of supporting HTTP.

The technical implementation of these profiles is very simple: effectively a "profile" is a static compilation of existing SupportedFeatures which represent the named category. Features that aren't covered under a "core" level of support are opt-in.

Integration¶

Integrating the test suite into your implementation can be done using one of the following methods:

The go test command line interface which enables projects of any language to run the test suite on any platform Golang supports.
Using the conformance test suite as a Golang library within an already existing test suite.

NOTE: Usage as a library is already an established colloquialism in the community, this effort simply intends to make that more official.

Conformance profiles are passed as arguments when running the test suite. For instance when running via command line:

$ go test ./conformance/... -args -gateway-class=acme -conformance-profile=Layer7

Or the equivalent configuration using the Golang library:

cSuite, err := suite.New(suite.Options{
    GatewayClassName: "acme",
    Profiles: sets.New(Layer7),
    // other options
})
require.NoError(t, err, "misconfigured conformance test suite")
cSuite.Setup(t)

for i := 0; i < len(tests.ConformanceTests); i++ {
    test := tests.ConformanceTests[i]
    test.Run(t, cSuite)
}

NOTE: In the suite.Options above it's still possible to add SkipTests but when used in conjunction with Profile this will result in a report that the profile is not valid for reporting. Implementations in this state may be able to report themselves as "in progress", see the certification section for details.

Alternatively for an Extended conformance profile where not all of the features are implemented (as described in the profiles section above):

$ go test ./conformance/... -args \
    -gateway-class=acme \
    -conformance-profiles=HTTP,TCP \
    -unsupported-features=HTTPResponseHeaderModification,HTTPRouteMethodMatching,HTTPRouteQueryParamMatching,

Or the equivalent configuration using the Golang library:

cSuite, err := suite.New(suite.Options{
    GatewayClassName: "acme",
    Profiles: sets.New(
        HTTP,
        TCP,
    ),
    UnsupportedFeatures: sets.New(
        suite.SupportHTTPResponseHeaderModification,
        suite.SupportHTTPRouteMethodMatching,
        suite.SupportHTTPRouteQueryParamMatching,
    ),
    // other options
})
require.NoError(t, err, "misconfigured conformance test suite")
cSuite.Setup(t)

for i := 0; i < len(tests.ConformanceTests); i++ {
    test := tests.ConformanceTests[i]
    test.Run(t, cSuite)
}

NOTE: You can't disable features that are Core conformance as Core is a minimum requirement for the profile to be considered fulfilled.

Some implementations may support more or less extended features than others, so in some cases it could be cumbersome to have to list ALL features that you don't support so we optionally and inversely allow SupportedFeatures so you can pick which option makes sense to you, and under the hood the expressions will compile to the same overall list:

cSuite, err := suite.New(suite.Options{
    GatewayClassName: "acme",
    Profiles: sets.New(
        HTTP,
        TCP,
    ),
    SupportedFeatures: sets.New(
        suite.SupportHTTPRouteMethodMatching,
    ),
    // other options
})

NOTE: The UnsupportedFeatures and SupportedFeatures fields are mutually exclusive.

So to have your YAML report include details about extended features you support you must either opt-in using SupportedFeatures to the exact features you support, or opt-out of the features you don't support using UnsupportedFeatures.

Once an implementation has integrated with the conformance test suite, they can move on to certification to report the results.

Certification¶

Implementations will be able to report their conformance testing results using our reporting process. Implementations will be able to visibly demonstrate their conformance results on their downstream projects and repositories using our certification process.

Reporting Process¶

When conformance tests are executed an argument can be provided to the test suite to emit ConformanceReport resource with the test results. This resource can be configured to emit to the test output itself, or to a specific file.

The following is an example report:

apiVersion: v1alpha1
kind: ConformanceReport
implementation:
  organization: acme
  project: operator
  url: https://acme.com
  version: v1.0.0
  contact:
  - @acme/maintainers
date: "2023-02-28 20:29:41+00:00"
gatewayAPIVersion: v0.7.0
profiles:
  - name: tcp
    core:
      status: success
      summary: "all core functionality passed"
      statistics:
        passed: 4
        skipped: 0
        failed: 0
    extended:
      status: skipped
      summary: "no extended features supported"
      statistics:
        passed: 0
        skipped: 6
        failed: 0
      unsupportedFeatures:
      - ExtendedFeature1
      - ExtendedFeature2
      - ExtendedFeature3
  - name: http
    core:
      status: success
      summary: "all core functionality passed"
      statistics:
        passed: 20
        skipped: 0
        failed: 0
    extended:
      status: success
      summary: "all extended features supported"
      statistics:
        passed: 8
        skipped: 0
        failed: 0
      supportedFeatures:
      - ExtendedFeature1
      - ExtendedFeature2
      - ExtendedFeature3
      - ExtendedFeature4
      - ExtendedFeature5

WARNING: It is an important clarification that this is NOT a full Kubernetes API. It uses TypeMeta for some fields that made sense to re-use and were familiar, but otherwise has it's own structure. It is not a Custom Resource Definition (CRD) nor will it be made available along with our CRDs. It will be used only by conformance test tooling.

NOTE: The implementation field in the above example includes an organization and project field. Organizations can be an open source organization, an individual, a company, e.t.c.. Organizations can theoretically have multiple projects and should submit separate reports for each of them.

NOTE: The contact field indicates the Github usernames or team names of those who are responsible for maintaining this file, so they can be easily contacted when needed (e.g. for relevant release announcements regarding conformance, e.t.c.).

The above report describes an implemenation that just released v1 and has Core support for TCP functionality and fully supports both Core and Extended HTTP functionality.

ConformanceReports can be stored as a list of reports in chronological order. The following shows previous releases of the acme/operator implementation and its feature progression:

apiVersion: v1alpha1
kind: ConformanceReport
implementation:
  organization: acme
  project: operator
  url: https://acme.com
  version: v0.91.0
  contact:
  - @acme/maintainers
date: "2022-09-28 20:29:41+00:00"
gatewayAPIVersion: v0.6.2
profiles:
  - name: tcp
    core:
      status: partial
      summary: "some tests were manually skipped"
      statistics:
        passed: 2
        skipped: 2
        failed: 0
      skippedTests:
      - TCPRouteBasics
      - UDPRouteBasics
    extended:
      status: skipped
      summary: "no extended features supported"
      statistics:
        passed: 0
        skipped: 4
        failed: 0
      unsupportedFeatures:
      - ExtendedFeature1
      - ExtendedFeature2
      - ExtendedFeature3
  - name: http
    core:
      status: success
      summary: "all core functionality passed"
      statistics:
        passed: 20
        skipped: 0
        failed: 0
    extended:
      status: success
      summary: "all extended features supported"
      statistics:
        passed: 5
        skipped: 3
        failed: 0
      supportedFeatures:
      - ExtendedFeature1
      - ExtendedFeature2
      - ExtendedFeature3
      unsupportedFeatures:
      - ExtendedFeature4
      - ExtendedFeature5
---
apiVersion: v1alpha1
kind: ConformanceReport
implementation:
  organization: acme
  project: operator
  url: https://acmeorg.com
  version: v0.90.0
  contact:
  - @acme/maintainers
date: "2022-08-28 20:29:41+00:00"
gatewayAPIVersion: v0.6.1
profiles:
  - name: tcp
    core:
      status: failed
      summary: "all tests are failing"
      statistics:
        passed: 0
        skipped: 0
        failed: 4
      failedTests:
      - TCPRouteExampleTest1
      - TCPRouteExampleTest2
      - TCPRouteExampleTest3
      - TCPRouteExampleTest4
  - name: http
    core:
      status: success
      summary: "all core functionality passed"
      statistics:
        passed: 20
        skipped: 0
        failed: 0
    extended:
      status: skipped
      summary: "no extended features supported"
      statistics:
        passed: 2
        skipped: 6
        failed: 0
      supportedFeatures:
      - ExtendedFeature1
      unsupportedFeatures:
      - ExtendedFeature2
      - ExtendedFeature3
      - ExtendedFeature4
      - ExtendedFeature5
---
apiVersion: v1alpha1
kind: ConformanceReport
implementation:
  organization: acme
  project: operator
  url: https://acmeorg.com
  version: v0.89.0
  contact:
  - @acme/maintainers
date: "2022-07-28 20:29:41+00:00"
gatewayAPIVersion: v0.6.0
profiles:
  - name: http
    core:
      status: partial
      summary: "some tests were skipped"
      statistics:
        passed: 16
        skipped: 2
        failed: 0
      skippedTests:
      - HTTPRouteTestExample1
      - HTTPRouteTestExample2
    extended:
      status: skipped
      summary: "no extended features supported"
      statistics:
        passed: 0
        skipped: 8
        failed: 0
      unsupportedFeatures:
      - ExtendedFeature1
      - ExtendedFeature2
      - ExtendedFeature3
      - ExtendedFeature4
      - ExtendedFeature5

NOTE: In the above you can see the acme implementation's progression. In their release v0.89.0 they had started adding HTTP support and added the conformance tests to CI, but they were still skipping some core tests. In their next release v0.90.0 they completed adding HTTP Core functionality (and even added one extended feature), and also starting adding TCP functionality during v0.90.0 (but it was failing at that time). In v0.91.0 they had completed core HTTP supported and added two more Extended features, and also started to get their TCP functionality to partially pass.

Implementers can submit their reports upstream by creating a pull request to the Gateway API repository and adding new reports to a file specific to their implementation's project name:

conformance/results/<organization>-<project>.yaml

Creating a pull request to add the ConformanceReport will start the certification process.

NOTE: No verification process (to prevent intentionally incorrect conformance results) will be implemented at this time. We expect that this wont be an issue in our community and even if someone were to try and "cheat" on the reporting the reputation loss for being caught would make them look very bad and would not be worth it.

Certification Process¶

For this initial iteration the raw report data of the ConformanceReports will live in its own directory and is predominantly meant for machine consumption. Report data will be compiled into human-friendly displays during the an automated certification process.

Certification starts with the pull request described during the reporting process. Once the ConformanceReport is created or updated a display layer in the implementations page will need to be updated to point to the new data.

NOTE: The ConformanceReport API will be defined in Golang like our other apis/ so that we can utilize build tags from kubebuilder for defaults and validation, and so that there exists a common Golang type for it in the conformance test suite. When PRs are created the Gateway API repositories' CI will run linting and validation against the reports.

CI will provide badges to contributors at the end of the process which link to the implementations page for that specific implementation and can be easily added via markdown to Git repositories.

Alternatives Considered¶

Conformance Test Configuration File¶

Conformance testing is currently done mainly through command line with go test or via use of the conformance test suite as a library in Golang projects. We considered whether adding the alternative to provide a configuration file to the test suite would be nice, but we haven't heard any specific demand for that from implementors yet so we're leaving the idea here for later iterations to consider.

Conformance Test Container Image¶

Providing a container image which could be fed deployment instructions for an implementation was considered while working on this GET but it seemed like a scope all unto itself so we're avoiding it here and perhaps a later iteration could take a look at that if there are asks in the community.

Implementation-Specific Reporting¶

Users have mentioned the desire to report on implementation-specific features they support as a part of conformance. At the time of writing, there's not much in the way of structure or testing for us to do this with but we remain open to the idea. The door is left open in the ConformanceReport API for a future iteration to add this if desired, but it probably warrants its own GEP as we need to make sure we have buy-in from multiple stakeholders with different implementations that are implementing those features.

Mesh Profiles¶

We eventually want profiles for GAMMA/mesh related tests, however at this point we believe the test suite for mesh could end up being it's own separate thing so it's not a part of this GEP for now, but we should make sure our tooling is modular and composable so if we do end up with an eventual mesh conformance test suite, it can employ conformance profiles and reporting as-is.

High Level Profiles¶

We originally started with two high level profiles:

Layer4
Layer7

However the overwhelming feedback from the community was to go a step down and define profiles at the level of each individual API (e.g. HTTPRoute, TCPRoute, GRPCRoute, e.t.c.). One of the main reasons for this was that we already have multiple known implementations of Gateway API which only support a single route type (UDPRoute, in particular as it turns out).

We may consider in the future doing some of these higher level profiles if there's a technical reason or strong desire from implementers.

References¶

https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/issues/1709
https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/issues/1329