Feature/gce infra by chakravardhan · Pull Request #336 · kubernetes-sigs/ingress2gateway

chakravardhan · 2026-02-05T10:08:02Z

What type of PR is this?
/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds support for a new provider-specific flag --gce-gateway-class-name to the GCE emitter.

Currently, the GCE provider defaults to standard GatewayClasses (e.g., gke-l7-global-external-managed or gke-l7-rilb) based on the input Ingress class. This change allows users to override the GatewayClassName field in all generated Gateways when using the gce emitter, which is useful for migration testing or custom Gateway deployments.

If the flag is unset, the emitter preserves the default classes determined by the provider.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Added `--gce-gateway-class-name` flag to GCE emitter to allow overriding the output GatewayClassName.

k8s-ci-robot · 2026-02-05T10:08:13Z

Hi @chakravardhan. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

Stevenjin8 · 2026-02-05T16:58:35Z


 type EmitterConf struct {
 	// TODO: add fields as needed.
+	ProviderSpecificFlags map[string]map[string]string


I realize that a lot of the flags weren't built with emitters in mind, but is there any way to not have ProviderSpecificFlags in the Emitter configuration.

otherwise this PR lgtm

I've completely removed ProviderSpecificFlags from the EmitterConf.

To solve the --gce-gateway-class-name issue, I moved the flag registration from the GCE Emitter to the GCE Provider. The provider now extracts this flag directly from its own configuration (ProviderConf) and applies the GatewayClass override into the Intermediate Representation (IR) during the initial convertToIR translation phase instead.

This keeps the Emitters perfectly clean and completely agnostic of any provider-specific CLI flags

bexxmodd · 2026-02-09T19:23:14Z

+	var gatewayClassName string
+	if c.conf != nil && c.conf.ProviderSpecificFlags != nil {
+		if flags, ok := c.conf.ProviderSpecificFlags["gce"]; ok {
+			if val, ok := flags[GatewayClassNameFlag]; ok && val != "" {


So if no value is supplied for the flag it will be a no-op?

I agree with Beka, can we do some validation here to make sure that the flag value is valid?

If the value is non-nil, it should be one of the valid class names here: https://docs.cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/how-to/gatewayclass-capabilities (not an empty string either).

I'm not totally sure if we should be doing validation further up the stack for ProviderSpecificFlags, but it doesn't look like any other provider is doing that right now.

Agreed, Added a validation logic in ir_converter.go right where we first extract the flag payload from the ProviderSpecificFlags map.

spencerhance · 2026-02-09T23:13:36Z

+	var gatewayClassName string
+	if c.conf != nil && c.conf.ProviderSpecificFlags != nil {
+		if flags, ok := c.conf.ProviderSpecificFlags["gce"]; ok {
+			if val, ok := flags[GatewayClassNameFlag]; ok && val != "" {


I agree with Beka, can we do some validation here to make sure that the flag value is valid?

If the value is non-nil, it should be one of the valid class names here: https://docs.cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/how-to/gatewayclass-capabilities (not an empty string either).

I'm not totally sure if we should be doing validation further up the stack for ProviderSpecificFlags, but it doesn't look like any other provider is doing that right now.

spencerhance · 2026-02-10T19:27:02Z

/lgtm

spencerhance · 2026-02-13T19:51:11Z

/lgtm

chakravardhan · 2026-02-19T08:16:15Z

/lgtm

@LiorLieberman , Can I get approval on this PR? Thanks!

Stevenjin8 · 2026-02-19T22:11:46Z

/approve

Stevenjin8 · 2026-02-19T22:11:50Z

/ok-to-test

k8s-ci-robot · 2026-02-19T22:11:55Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bexxmodd, chakravardhan, spencerhance, Stevenjin8

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [Stevenjin8]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

* feat(gce): implement GatewayClassName override logic * style: gofmt changes * refactor: Move GatewayClassNameFlag from Emitter to Provider * Add test case for gatewayclassname flag * feat: Add validation for gce-gateway-class-name flag * fix: remove duplicate validation block * refactor: simplify gateway-class-name flag validation block * fix(gce): fixing converter test according to upstream changes

chakravardhan requested review from LiorLieberman, Stevenjin8, robscott and youngnick as code owners February 5, 2026 10:08

k8s-ci-robot added the kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Feb 5, 2026

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from spencerhance February 5, 2026 10:08

k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Feb 5, 2026

k8s-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 5, 2026

Stevenjin8 reviewed Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Feb 5, 2026

chakravardhan force-pushed the feature/gce-infra branch 2 times, most recently from 0f71686 to a6c5cb0 Compare February 5, 2026 20:20

k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 6, 2026

chakravardhan requested a review from Stevenjin8 February 6, 2026 09:02

bexxmodd reviewed Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

spencerhance approved these changes Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

chakravardhan requested review from bexxmodd and spencerhance February 10, 2026 03:10

bexxmodd suggested changes Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread pkg/i2gw/providers/gce/ir_converter.go

bexxmodd approved these changes Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned spencerhance Feb 10, 2026

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 10, 2026

spencerhance approved these changes Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

chakravardhan added 2 commits February 13, 2026 12:34

feat(gce): implement GatewayClassName override logic

80119a6

style: gofmt changes

f394007

chakravardhan added 6 commits February 13, 2026 12:36

refactor: Move GatewayClassNameFlag from Emitter to Provider

477aa8c

Add test case for gatewayclassname flag

2a58683

feat: Add validation for gce-gateway-class-name flag

b6cd327

fix: remove duplicate validation block

492f599

refactor: simplify gateway-class-name flag validation block

e3bdbf2

fix(gce): fixing converter test according to upstream changes

82fda4f

chakravardhan force-pushed the feature/gce-infra branch from b07644a to 82fda4f Compare February 13, 2026 12:46

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 13, 2026

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 13, 2026

k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Feb 19, 2026

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 19, 2026

k8s-ci-robot merged commit a5c78d8 into kubernetes-sigs:main Feb 19, 2026
4 checks passed

Conversation

chakravardhan commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Stevenjin8 Feb 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Stevenjin8 Feb 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chakravardhan Feb 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bexxmodd Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

spencerhance Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chakravardhan Feb 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

spencerhance Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

spencerhance commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

spencerhance commented Feb 13, 2026

Uh oh!

chakravardhan commented Feb 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Stevenjin8 commented Feb 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Stevenjin8 commented Feb 19, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants