Oas bot 32696593591/ufw - #10628
Open
alextiugan15 wants to merge 13 commits into
Open
Conversation
- added ufw examples - added ufw waiters and unit tests
# Conflicts: # services/ufw/go.mod # services/ufw/oas_commit
- removed nil status checking - removed unused statuses - added a shared method for all wait handlers
# Conflicts: # services/ufw/go.mod # services/ufw/oas_commit # services/ufw/v1api/model_rule_response.go
# Conflicts: # services/ufw/go.mod # services/ufw/oas_commit # services/ufw/v1api/model_rule_response.go
11 tasks
Contributor
|
cgoetz-inovex
approved these changes
Aug 24, 2026
GokceGK
reviewed
Aug 24, 2026
| - `v1api`: **Improvement:** Add validation for `Description` field | ||
| - `ufw`: | ||
| - [v1.0.0](services/ufw/CHANGELOG.md#v100) | ||
| - **New:** STACKIT UFW service |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| - **New:** STACKIT UFW service | |
| - **New:** STACKIT Unified Firewall (UFW) service |
GokceGK
reviewed
Aug 24, 2026
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| v1.0.0 No newline at end of file | |||
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really want to start with v1? Other services mostly start with v0.1.0
GokceGK
reviewed
Aug 24, 2026
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| ## v1.0.0 | |||
| - **New:** STACKIT UFW service | |||
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| - **New:** STACKIT UFW service | |
| - **New:** STACKIT Unified Firewall (UFW) service |
GokceGK
reviewed
Aug 24, 2026
| region := "eu01" // Region where the resources will be created | ||
| projectId := "PROJECT_ID" // UUID of your STACKIT project | ||
| instanceId := "INSTANCE_ID" // UUID of the instance to which the firewall rule will be attached | ||
| productType := "PRODUCT_TYPE" // Type of the instance to which the firewall rule will be attached (e.g. "redis", but you can get them from provider-options route) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the product type not limited to Edge Cloud for the beginning? If yes, I would prefer that edge is mentioned in the example instead of redis.
GokceGK
reviewed
Aug 24, 2026
| return ruleWaitHandler(ctx, a, projectId, region, ruleId, nil, []int{http.StatusNotFound}) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func ruleWaitHandler(ctx context.Context, a ufw.DefaultAPI, projectId, region, ruleId string, activeStates []ufw.RuleResponseStatus, deleteHttpErrorStatusCodes []int) *wait.AsyncActionHandler[ufw.RuleResponse] { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you rename this function to sth like createOrUpdateRuleWaitHandler to keep the standard implementation of SDK. We try to follow this naming convention since some time.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for example
GokceGK
reviewed
Aug 24, 2026
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func TestCreateRuleWaitHandler(t *testing.T) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can combine create and update tests into one. e.g
Just need to pay attention to the handlers part.
GokceGK
reviewed
Aug 24, 2026
| } | ||
|
|
||
| createdFirewallRuleId := createdFirewallRule.RefId | ||
| fmt.Printf("Created firewall rule with ID: %s\n", *createdFirewallRuleId) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This message is a bit misleading. Actually here the creation is triggered and waiter starts.
So we should write sth like [UFW] Triggered creation of firewall rule with ID.....
GokceGK
reviewed
Aug 24, 2026
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fmt.Printf("Updated firewall rule with ID: %s\n", *updatedFirewallRule.RefId) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| fmt.Printf("Updated firewall rule with ID: %s\n", *updatedFirewallRule.RefId) | |
| fmt.Printf("[UFW] Triggered update of firewall rule with ID: %s\n", *updatedFirewallRule.RefId) |
GokceGK
reviewed
Aug 24, 2026
| return err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fmt.Printf("Deleted firewall rule with ID: %s\n", ruleId) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| fmt.Printf("Deleted firewall rule with ID: %s\n", ruleId) | |
| fmt.Printf("[UFW] Triggered deletion of firewall rule with ID: %s\n", ruleId) |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
Description
relates to #1234
Checklist
make fmtexamples/directory)make test(will be checked by CI)make lint(will be checked by CI)