Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 57.14286% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 70.91%. Comparing base (ec94c98) to head (4b10a53).
Report is 52 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6433      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   70.93%   70.91%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         220      220              
  Lines       37259    37265       +6     
==========================================
- Hits        26429    26426       -3     
- Misses       9287     9292       +5     
- Partials     1543     1547       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

by doing this we are losing creationTimestamp order, because that is how the HTTPRoutes are originally processed
and now rely on naming order

the pro is this adds consistent ordering even when timestamp is same

the con is

• doesnt align with how ties should be broken according to https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/reference/spec/#httprouterule
• users who rely on timestamp order will need to rely on naming order

wdyt @envoyproxy/gateway-maintainers

by doing this we are losing creationTimestamp order, because that is how the HTTPRoutes are originally processed and now rely on naming order

the pro is this adds consistent ordering even when timestamp is same

the con is

* doesnt align with how ties should be broken according to https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/reference/spec/#httprouterule

* users who rely on timestamp order will need to rely on naming order

wdyt @envoyproxy/gateway-maintainers

@arkodg
Another option is, include a sort logic here based on namespace and name of the HTTPRoute if their creation dates are equal. This exactly match specs, but I have not checked if this order break later based on route rules. I can test it today and let you know.

by doing this we are losing creationTimestamp order, because that is how the HTTPRoutes are originally processed and now rely on naming order
the pro is this adds consistent ordering even when timestamp is same
the con is

* doesnt align with how ties should be broken according to https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/reference/spec/#httprouterule

* users who rely on timestamp order will need to rely on naming order

wdyt @envoyproxy/gateway-maintainers

@arkodg Another option is, include a sort logic here based on namespace and name of the HTTPRoute if their creation dates are equal. This exactly match specs, but I have not checked if this order break later based on route rules. I can test it today and let you know.

@fayizk1 to do this, we'd also have to save creationTimestamp in the IR, which would increase mem, today the sort happens before translation

hey @fayizk1 rethinking this one, this can be solved in

hey @fayizk1 rethinking this one, this can be solved in

gateway/internal/gatewayapi/route.go

Line 60 in c455a6e

sort.Slice(httpRoutes, func(i, j int) bool {

by converting it into a Sort Func and creating a two level match within it (timestamp and alphabetical name), it should have the same desired testdata result

Exactly, this is what I wanted to test, and I had a working version for sometime but did not get time to add a broader test case. We may also need to move to a stable sort in other sort logic to avoid order change when equal case. I will open another PR as soon as possible.

(Just realized that I put wrong long in previous comment :) )

closing in favor of #6550