Create Ingress for extensions

[Ankit152]

Description:

Link to tracking Issue(s):

• Resolves: [Collector] Consume extension service with Ingress to give users a way to interact with them #3438
• Kubernetes Operator to support Jaeger-v2  jaegertracing/jaeger-operator#2717

Testing:

Documentation:

[Ankit152]

It's a POC and work is still in progress.
The discussion around the implementation is still on-going.

Once the code for extension service is merged, this branch will be re-based.

[Ankit152]

Folks since the service for extensions is merged, I would like to discuss about the implementation of Ingress.

cc @pavolloffay @iblancasa @swiatekm @jaronoff97 @yurishkuro

[swiatekm]

The change looks fine to me. What I'm not convinced of is whether we need a whole separate configuration vs a boolean switch to include extension ports in the existing Ingress. I'd like to discuss that in the issue.

[Ankit152]

Sure @swiatekm
It will be very great if we discuss the implementation on the issue itself.

[frzifus]

Folks since the service for extensions is merged, I would like to discuss about the implementation of Ingress.

We can put it on the agenda for the SIG call if you like.

[frzifus]

The change looks fine to me. What I'm not convinced of is whether we need a whole separate configuration vs a boolean switch to include extension ports in the existing Ingress. I'd like to discuss that in the issue.

Can a boolean work when the extension may changes?

[swiatekm]

The change looks fine to me. What I'm not convinced of is whether we need a whole separate configuration vs a boolean switch to include extension ports in the existing Ingress. I'd like to discuss that in the issue.

Can a boolean work when the extension may changes?

Not sure what you mean? A boolean switch would mean we'd just add the extension paths to the existing receiver Ingress.

[frzifus]

hey @Ankit152, the contribution was discussed in the SIG call today.

There three things came up:

• Can this lead to unwanted extensions being exposed by mistake? (e.g. pprof and other things? Even if there is no port-parser implementation for something specific, it may gets added in the future and would be exposed automatically.)
• Do we need a 2nd ingress entry? Can we maybe reuse the exsting one with a different sub domain? (e.g. customXYZ.extension.*?)
• Would it be sufficent to just provide a extensionWhitelist that will be exposed? (OT: might be also a good idea to add a receiver whitelist then. But thats another topic to discuss)

[Ankit152]

Hey @frzifus
Sorry for delayed response as I was out for year end recharge. I don't mind adding any modifications to the existing PR as this was just raised to discuss the implementation.

@pavolloffay can you please help addressing the questions?