Add support for custom service links

[nwmac]

Internal Reference: SURE-7445

The current Rancher UI logic only generates clickable proxy URLs for services when certain conditions are met: the 'ports' array in the service spec must be populated, the protocol must be TCP, and the port number must end with '80' or '443'.

This request is that we introduce an annotation on services to designate any given port as a web service endpoint, thereby instructing the UI to generate clickable links for these services, regardless of the port number used.

Annotation name TBD

[github-actions]

🎯 Agentic Issue Triage

Summary: Feature request to introduce a Kubernetes service annotation that instructs the Rancher UI to generate clickable proxy/web links for service ports regardless of their port number, overriding the current hardcoded logic that restricts clickable links to TCP ports ending in 80 or 443.

---

📍 Relevant Code Location

The core logic to change is in shell/components/formatter/ServiceTargets.vue around line 73:

if (p?.protocol === 'TCP' && (stringPort.endsWith('80') || stringPort.endsWith('443'))) {
  if (isMaybeSecure(p.port, p?.protocol)) {
    proxyUrl = row.proxyUrl('https', p.port);
  } else {
    proxyUrl = row.proxyUrl('http', p.port);
  }
}

The proxyUrl helper itself lives in shell/models/service.js (proxyUrl, proxyUrlFromParts, proxyUrlFromBase).

Note: the code already checks for a CATTLE_PUBLIC_ENDPOINTS annotation (imported from shell/config/labels-annotations). That's a useful pattern to follow for the new annotation.

💡 Design Suggestions

A reasonable annotation design (TBD per the issue):

cattle.io/ui-service-port-links: "8080/http,9443/https"

or, simpler (just flag ports to auto-detect scheme):

cattle.io/ui-service-port-links: "8080,9443"

The annotation key should be added to shell/config/labels-annotations.ts alongside existing constants like CATTLE_PUBLIC_ENDPOINTS.

When the annotation is present on a service, the ServiceTargets.vue logic should:

1. Parse the annotation value into a list of ports (and optional schemes).
2. For any ports entry whose port appears in the annotation list, generate a proxyUrl regardless of port number.
3. Fall back to the existing endsWith('80') / endsWith('443') heuristic for unannotated ports.

🔧 Suggested Sub-Tasks

• Define the annotation name and value format (product/design decision)
• Add the annotation constant to shell/config/labels-annotations.ts
• Update ServiceTargets.vue to read the annotation and generate proxy links for annotated ports
• Handle scheme detection for the annotated ports (default to isMaybeSecure heuristic, or allow explicit http/https in annotation value)
• Add/update unit tests in shell/detail/__tests__/service.test.ts and shell/utils/validators/__tests__/service.test.ts
• Update WorkloadDetailEndpoints.vue if similar port-based link logic exists there (check line 34)
• E2E test coverage in cypress/e2e/tests/pages/explorer/service-discovery/

📚 Useful References

• shell/components/formatter/ServiceTargets.vue — primary change location
• shell/models/service.js — proxyUrl helpers
• shell/config/labels-annotations.ts — where to add the new annotation constant
• shell/utils/url.ts — isMaybeSecure utility
• Internal Reference: SURE-7445

Generated by Agentic Triage for issue #17616 · ● 335.3K · ◷

[github-actions]

🤖 Issue grooming questions

Thanks for filing this feature request! The problem context is clear, but a couple of items are needed before this can be triaged for development.

Missing: Acceptance Criteria

Please add concrete, testable acceptance criteria describing what "done" looks like. For example:

• Which UI surface shows the clickable link (service list page, service detail page, etc.)?
• What does the link point to (the proxied URL, the raw port URL, something else)?
• Should the link appear in addition to existing links, or replace the existing logic?

Missing: Technical Details — Annotation Definition

The annotation name is noted as "TBD". Before this can be scoped:

1. What is the proposed annotation name and value format (e.g., field.cattle.io/service-link: "true" or a port-keyed form)?
2. If the annotation name isn't finalized yet, what is the decision process and expected timeline?

This comment was generated automatically to help gather the information needed to groom this issue.

Generated by Daily Issue Grooming · ● 584.1K · ◷

[github-actions]

🤖 Issue grooming questions

The issue body has not yet been updated since the previous questions were asked. The same two items are still needed:

1. Missing: Acceptance Criteria

Please add concrete, testable criteria describing what "done" looks like. For example:

• A service annotated with the new annotation shows a clickable proxy link for the annotated port(s) on the service list/detail page.
• Services without the annotation continue to use the existing endsWith('80') / endsWith('443') heuristic (no regression).
• The link points to the correct proxied URL (http or https as appropriate).

2. Missing: Annotation Definition

The annotation name is still marked as "TBD". Before this can be scoped for development:

• What is the proposed annotation name and value format (e.g. cattle.io/ui-service-links: "8080/http,9443/https")?
• If it hasn't been decided yet, what is the expected decision timeline?

This comment was generated automatically to help gather the information needed to groom this issue.

Generated by Daily Issue Grooming · ● 499K · ◷