Add 307 / 308 Redirect Status Code Support

[davidwin93]

What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
/area conformance-test

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR allows users to select either a 307 or 308 status code along with the existing options of 301 and 302. This matches RFC 9110 and by letting users select 308 it will match the existing nginx ingress behaviour of using a 308 for HTTP -> HTTPS redirects.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #2748

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
This will allow users to select 307 or 308 as redirect status codes along with 301 and 302.

Adds support to select 307 or 308 status codes along with the current options of 301 and 302

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: davidwin93
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign mlavacca for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @davidwin93!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @davidwin93. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[robscott]

Thanks @davidwin93, this will be a great improvement!

/ok-to-test

[LiorLieberman]

/cc

[mikemorris]

Note: For historical reasons, a user agent MAY change the request method from POST to GET for the subsequent request. If this behavior is undesired, the 307 (Temporary Redirect) or 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code can be used instead.

Is there any suggestion that we would want to include in docs for this behavior for 301 and 302 responses?

[kflynn]

I'd like to see the user-facing docs updated as part of this PR -- thanks!!

[LiorLieberman]

echoing feedback from today's community meeting.

this may benefit from a SupportedFeature for gradual enablement, because if this gets in, if there is any implementation that does not support 307 and 308 they go out of conformance

[davidwin93]

@LiorLieberman in regards to SupportedFeature do I need to wait for this to get in first?
Do you happen to have any examples of any in flight work that is currently using this functionality, or would this be the first change to leverage supported features?

[candita]

this may benefit from a SupportedFeature for gradual enablement, because if this gets in, if there is any implementation that does not support 307 and 308 they go out of conformance

Can we add this as Extended (optional)?

[LiorLieberman]

@LiorLieberman in regards to SupportedFeature do I need to wait for this to get in first? Do you happen to have any examples of any in flight work that is currently using this functionality, or would this be the first change to leverage supported features?

no, these are two different things. when I said supported features I really meant a FeatureName - like https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/blob/main/conformance/tests/httproute-response-header-modifier.go#L40 for example.

And @candita, to your point, adding a featureName would mean it is initially extended, but as said during the meeting, we should communicate clearly we are only doing it for gradual enablement, with intentions to move it to core (and remove the featureName) once we communicated it enough

[LiorLieberman]

@davidwin93 let me know if you need any assistance with this.

See recent commit that did the same thing almost - e77c612

[davidwin93]

@LiorLieberman thanks for that example. I've added some new tests with a new feature. I assume I should revert my changes to the existing conformance tests?

Ill also work on updating the docs shortly.

[LiorLieberman]

Thanks @davidwin93. Yes please revert the changes to existing conformance tests and their manifests.

[LiorLieberman]

are we anticipating any more codes in the future? haha.
should we specifically mention 307 and 308 in the feature name or no need?

[LiorLieberman]

Suggested change

	features.SupportHTTPRouteAdditionalRedirectStatusCodes,
	features.SupportMeshHTTPRouteAdditionalRedirectStatusCodes,

[LiorLieberman]

add add a feature for this in https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/blob/main/pkg/features/mesh.go like you added in httproute.go