feat: Handling related resources which references to GatewayProxy

[ronething]

Signed-off-by: ashing axingfly@gmail.com

• Handling HTTPRoute/Gateway/Ingress/Consumer related resources for direct and indirect references to gatewayProxy
• TODO: remove default config from config.yaml

• httproute update parentRefs.

[github-actions]

conformance test report

apiVersion: gateway.networking.k8s.io/v1
date: "2025-04-16T16:18:16Z"
gatewayAPIChannel: standard
gatewayAPIVersion: v1.2.0
implementation:
  contact: null
  organization: API7
  project: api7-ingress-controller
  url: https://github.com/api7/api7-ingress-controller.git
  version: v2.0.0
kind: ConformanceReport
mode: default
profiles:
- core:
    failedTests:
    - HTTPRoutePathMatchOrder
    - HTTPRouteServiceTypes
    - HTTPRouteSimpleSameNamespace
    result: failure
    skippedTests:
    - GatewayInvalidTLSConfiguration
    - GatewaySecretInvalidReferenceGrant
    - GatewaySecretMissingReferenceGrant
    - GatewaySecretReferenceGrantAllInNamespace
    - GatewaySecretReferenceGrantSpecific
    - HTTPRouteExactPathMatching
    - HTTPRouteHTTPSListener
    - HTTPRouteHeaderMatching
    - HTTPRouteHostnameIntersection
    - HTTPRouteInvalidBackendRefUnknownKind
    - HTTPRouteInvalidCrossNamespaceBackendRef
    - HTTPRouteInvalidCrossNamespaceParentRef
    - HTTPRouteInvalidNonExistentBackendRef
    - HTTPRouteInvalidParentRefNotMatchingSectionName
    - HTTPRouteInvalidReferenceGrant
    - HTTPRouteListenerHostnameMatching
    - HTTPRouteMatching
    - HTTPRouteMatchingAcrossRoutes
    - HTTPRoutePartiallyInvalidViaInvalidReferenceGrant
    - HTTPRouteReferenceGrant
    - HTTPRouteRequestHeaderModifier
    - HTTPRouteWeight
    statistics:
      Failed: 3
      Passed: 8
      Skipped: 22
  name: GATEWAY-HTTP
  summary: Core tests failed with 3 test failures.

[Copilot]

Copilot reviewed 14 out of 14 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

internal/provider/adc/translator/gateway.go:37

• [nitpick] Consider explicitly handling the scenario when multiple GatewayProxy resources are present instead of arbitrarily selecting the first element. Clarifying this behavior (or adding support for multiple proxies if intended) would improve the maintainability and readability of the translation logic.

gatewayProxy = &tctx.GatewayProxies[0]

[Copilot]

Copilot reviewed 14 out of 14 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

internal/provider/adc/translator/gateway.go:36

• [nitpick] The logic here selects the first GatewayProxy from the GatewayProxies slice; if multiple proxies are provided, please ensure this behavior is intentional or add documentation to clarify the selection criteria.

if len(tctx.GatewayProxies) > 0 {

[Copilot]

[nitpick] Falling back to a default ADC configuration when task.configs is empty could lead to unintended behavior; consider enforcing explicit configuration or better handling of the empty case.

Suggested change

	if len(task.configs) > 0 {
	log.Debugw("syncing resources with multiple configs", zap.Any("configs", task.configs))
	for _, config := range task.configs {
	if err := d.execADC(config, args); err != nil {
	return err
	}
	}
	} else {
	// todo: remove using default config
	log.Debugw("syncing resources with default config")
	if err := d.execADC(adcConfig{
	ServerAddr: d.ServerAddr,
	Token: d.Token,
	}, args); err != nil {
	if len(task.configs) == 0 {
	log.Errorw("task.configs is empty; explicit configuration is required")
	return errors.New("task.configs cannot be empty; explicit configuration is required")
	}
	log.Debugw("syncing resources with multiple configs", zap.Any("configs", task.configs))
	for _, config := range task.configs {
	if err := d.execADC(config, args); err != nil {

[AlinsRan]

Debugging usage?

[ronething]

Yes, it can also be considered to be changed back, but most of the time we are using it for debugging?Will users directly use this file?

[AlinsRan]

Building an image will use this file.

[AlinsRan]

What is the relationship between this PR and the secret?

[ronething]

What is the relationship between this PR and the secret?

maybe we can change a PR title. Initially, it was for handling various reference relationships, which included the GatewayProxy reference secret that needed to be recorded in tctx.Secrets.

	tctx.Secrets[types.NamespacedName{
					Namespace: ns,
					Name:      secretRef.Name,
				}] = secret

[AlinsRan]

I think it would be more appropriate to handle it in one place.
For example, adding deleteConfigs

[ronething]

ok, i will change it later.

[AlinsRan]

If sync fails and configs are not deleted, is this expected?