Add a conformance test that checks adding and removing listeners

[mmamczur]

What type of PR is this?

/kind test
/area conformance

What this PR does / why we need it:

Adds a conformance test that tests adding and removing listeners.
#1607

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #1607

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @mmamczur. 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/test-infra repository.

[shaneutt]

Looking good! thanks for working on this.

I have a few minor comments.

[shaneutt]

comment-only: In the future with kubernetes/utils#269, this kind of thing will start being much easier without clutter. But that is neither here nor there 🤷

[shaneutt]

Looking good thank you.

These conformance tests often end up needing a couple people with different implementations to check them over to tease everything out, I'm approving but I'll leave the lgtm for someone else 👍

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mmamczur, shaneutt

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 [shaneutt]

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

[mmamczur]

/retest

fixed imports formatting

[robscott]

Thanks @mmamczur! This mostly LGTM, would appreciate some reviews from other implementers as well before merging though.

[dprotaso]

I think there are some implementations out there that could struggle with arbitrary port numbers.

Limiting the listener ports to '80' and '443' is pretty reductive. This feature should support arbitrary port numbers.

[robscott]

Limiting the listener ports to '80' and '443' is pretty reductive. This feature should support arbitrary port number

I think that's a separate discussion. I'm not opposed to tests that cover different/arbitrary ports, but I think that should be the explicit purpose of those tests. It's possible that an implementation may support adding listeners but not the full set of possible ports, I'd like to ensure those two concepts are disconnected in test results.

[robscott]

Thanks @mmamczur!

/lgtm

[dprotaso]

The intent of the issue was to support arbitrary ports/listeners because there are implementations that only listen on port 80 and 443.

From: #1586 (comment)

well I may be misspeaking a little, but at the very least Contour doesn't let you configure multiple HTTP or HTTPS Listeners, only one port is allowed for each at the moment

[robscott]

The intent of the issue was to support arbitrary ports/listeners because there are implementations that only listen on port 80 and 443.

Sorry, the arbitrary ports detail wasn't clear to me from the issue this PR fixes. I've filed #1842 as a follow up, let me know if I missed anything.