conformance: add test for HTTPRoute hostname precedence

[EyalPazz]

/kind test
/area conformance-test

Fixes #3921

NONE

[EyalPazz]

@robscott If you want to move this test to httproute-hostname-intersection lmk

[EyalPazz]

/retest

[youngnick]

That looks like how this should work, thanks @EyalPazz. I'll leave a conformance reviewer to lgtm though.

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: EyalPazz, youngnick

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• conformance/OWNERS [youngnick]

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

[rikatz]

/assign
No conformance reviewer here :) but I will take a look at this soon

[rikatz]

Description needs a little more detail. What it does, and what is the expected outcome of the test? Look at an example here:

gateway-api/conformance/tests/backendtlspolicy-observed-generation-bump.go

Line 41 in 110bcaf

Description: "A BackendTLSPolicy in the gateway-conformance-infra namespace should update the observedGeneration in all of it's Status.Conditions after an update to the spec",

[rikatz]

small comment on the test description, can be fixed on a followup
I will put a hold anyway if you can fix it until tomorrow before code freeze :)
/lgtm
/hold

Thanks!

[snorwin]

I verified the tests using the Airlock Microgateway. However, I’m not sure whether this should be defined as a separate test case or if it would be better integrated into the HTTPRouteHostnameIntersection test.

[EyalPazz]

Yea i'm not sure too, wdyt @robscott

[k8s-ci-robot]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[EyalPazz]

fixed the description @rikatz

[rikatz]

another pass, lgtm.

Will wait for Rob to answer if this should be moved to the same test as HTTPRouteHostnameIntersection, IMO if this was always specified but never tested, moving to the existing test is better

[robscott]

Thanks for working on this @EyalPazz! While this looks like a great start, I think we want to be more thorough with the test cases here. For example, in the case where we have *.com and a.com, both may match a request, but a.com should have precedence. We'd need to test variations of this on both Gateway and HTTPRoute levels. @kl52752 has been working on some similar tests for GKE and might have some ideas here.

/cc @kl52752

[kl52752]

Thanks for working on this @EyalPazz! While this looks like a great start, I think we want to be more thorough with the test cases here. For example, in the case where we have *.com and a.com, both may match a request, but a.com should have precedence. We'd need to test variations of this on both Gateway and HTTPRoute levels. @kl52752 has been working on some similar tests for GKE and might have some ideas here.

/cc @kl52752

+1 to test case suggested by Rob with same length of hostname. Also we need to compare this rule with other precedences like timestamp and verifies that this rule takes precedence over others. https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/reference/spec/#httproutespec