Odd issue when using a name for a url creation when there is already a route in the devfile.yaml

[cdrage]

/kind bug

What versions of software are you using?

Operating System: Linux

Output of odo version: odo v2.5.0 (724f16e)

How did you run odo exactly?

git clone https://github.com/odo-devfiles/odo-quickstart
cd odo-quickstart/frontend
odo create nodejs frontend
odo url create nodejs --port 3000 --host foo.com
odo push

Actual behavior

/odo-quickstart/frontend  main ✗                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   119d ◒  
▶ odo push

Validation
 ✓  Validating the devfile [59588ns]

Creating Services for component frontend
 ✓  Services are in sync with the cluster, no changes are required

Creating Kubernetes resources for component frontend
 ✓  Waiting for component to start [8s]
 ✓  Links are in sync with the cluster, no changes are required
 ✓  Waiting for component to start [7ms]
 ⚠  Unable to create ingress, missing host information for Endpoint http-3000, please check instructions on URL creation (refer `odo url create --help`)

Why does it show a warning for the ingress of http-3000?

If I am creating a URL with the same port, why is it added to the devfile.yaml rather than overriding the current one in there?

See the devfile.yaml output:

components:
- container:
    dedicatedPod: false
    endpoints:
    - name: http-3000
      secure: false
      targetPort: 3000
    - exposure: public
      name: nodejs
      path: /
      protocol: http
      secure: false
      targetPort: 3000
    image: registry.access.redhat.com/ubi8/nodejs-14:latest
    memoryLimit: 1024Mi
    mountSources: true
    sourceMapping: /project
  name: runtime

Expected behavior

Expected behaviour is to for the one within the devfile.yaml to be overridden, or atleast a warning come up when you use odo url create... it's very odd that it will just append to the devfile.yaml and not check what's already in there.

Any logs, error output, etc?

See above

[valaparthvi]

With the changes coming in, in devfile(devfile/api#702), it will no longer support duplicate ports. And the current behavior of odo, as you observed, is such that it adds the port to devfile even if it exists. This will cause an error when we try to parse a devfile with duplicate ports.

To fix this, I was thinking of adding a validation check for duplicate ports, i.e. do not allow adding a duplicate port name in the first place, but if this is not a valid behavior, then I agree that overriding the existing port, or marking such an operation as invalid should be the expected behavior.

[kadel]

If I am creating a URL with the same port, why is it added to the devfile.yaml rather than overriding the current one in there?

@cdrage, Because you choose a different name for the endpoint. You can see that error message sais that it needs host for port called "http-3000", but you executed odo url create nodejs --port 3000 --host foo.com which defines host for port called "nodejs" so that is why odo decided to create a new endpoint, because it was actually a valid scenario till recently as @valaparthvi correctly pointed out.

[cdrage]

With the changes coming in, in devfile(devfile/api#702), it will no longer support duplicate ports. And the current behavior of odo, as you observed, is such that it adds the port to devfile even if it exists. This will cause an error when we try to parse a devfile with duplicate ports.

To fix this, I was thinking of adding a validation check for duplicate ports, i.e. do not allow adding a duplicate port name in the first place, but if this is not a valid behavior, then I agree that overriding the existing port, or marking such an operation as invalid should be the expected behavior.

Thanks, do we have an issue opened against odo right now to check for duplicate entries, or should we use this current issue to track it?

[valaparthvi]

That issue is a part fix of #4737. But since there are 2 fixes involved, I think we can use this issue to fix duplicate port validation, and 4737 to track the other fix.

[cdrage]

What was discussed on the cabal:

For a scenario like the original issue:

1. When we push we should warn the user that you need to supply --host for the ingress
2. When we push with --host, override the original ingress url in the devfile
3. Subsequent url creations, should create a new URL and not override the old ones.

[valaparthvi]

I am closing this since we no longer have these commands.