Skip to content

[management] Add support for port ranges in firewall rules #3823

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bcmmbaga
Copy link
Contributor

Describe your changes

Issue ticket number and link

Stack

Checklist

  • Is it a bug fix
  • Is a typo/documentation fix
  • Is a feature enhancement
  • It is a refactor
  • Created tests that fail without the change (if possible)
  • Extended the README / documentation, if necessary

@bcmmbaga bcmmbaga marked this pull request as ready for review May 14, 2025 14:39
@Copilot Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 14, 2025 14:39
Copy link
Contributor

@Copilot Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR adds support for port ranges in firewall rules, enhancing the firewall configuration capability.

  • Updated the rules generation logic to handle port ranges when no individual ports are specified.
  • Modified tests to accommodate the new peer ("peerI") and verify that port range-based rules are correctly created.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File Description
management/server/types/account.go Added logic to check for portRanges and generate rules accordingly
management/server/policy_test.go Updated tests to include a new peer and expected firewall rules for port ranges

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant