Skip to content
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

https traffic to tempo is silently broken if traefik is not related to a certificates provider #46

Closed
PietroPasotti opened this issue Sep 25, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #121

Comments

@PietroPasotti
Copy link
Contributor

Bug Description

if tempo is related to a certificates provider and an ingress, but the ingress doesn't have a certificate relation, tempo should set blocked so the user knows something is wrong. This helps address issues such as this one.

To Reproduce

see canonical/tempo-k8s-operator#153

Environment

any

Relevant log output

n/a

Additional context

possible ways to address this issue:
try to ping traefik with https and, on failure, we know the ingress isn't ready tot talk https and therefore all tracing relations are bork

@michaeldmitry
Copy link
Contributor

Add a pebble service to fire a notice to check if the endpoint is up (can be part of the lib)

@mmkay
Copy link
Contributor

mmkay commented Feb 19, 2025

One more edge case: everything works if you juju relate traefik:receive-ca-cert self-signed-certificates.

  1. we need to document better that if tempo is related to certificates provider but traefik isn't, traefik needs to be related to ca with receive-ca-cert endpoint
  2. should we be adding a pebble check?
    1. one scenario would still give us false negatives:
      1. we'll be failing to check ingressed url if it's connected to certificates, we're not, but it's terminating TLS correctly so other components can still send traces to tempo (just tempo cannot send them to itself as it's not related to certs)
      2. perhaps this check should be done only if we have an ingress, the ingressed URL is over http and tempo has a certificate
    2. maybe this should be a probe not in the charm? suggestion from @michaeldmitry

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants