OCPBUGS-49738: fix handling of host conflict

[jcmoraisjr]

Routes are grouped by host on three distinct hashmaps when allowWildcardRoutes is enabled. These hashmaps are updated whenever routes are added, modified or deleted, and their content is used to evaluate host conflicts. This hashmaps handling is done using the current host of the route resource, so, if the host value changes, the router does not find the entry on the hashmaps because it is using the current - and still not used - host value as the key.

The approach used on this update is to ignore the host from the router, and remove the resource from all the hosts instead, since the only match on all the hashmaps should be found on the key corresponding to the former host value.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@jcmoraisjr: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-49738, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to target the "4.22.0" version, but no target version was set

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

Details

In response to this:

Routes are grouped by host on three distinct hashmaps when allowWildcardRoutes is enabled. These hashmaps are updated whenever routes are added, modified or deleted, and their content is used to evaluate host conflicts. This hashmaps handling is done using the current host of the route resource, so, if the host value changes, the router does not find the entry on the hashmaps because it is using the current - and still not used - host value as the key.

The approach used on this update is to ignore the host from the router, and remove the resource from all the hosts instead, since the only match on all the hashmaps should be found on the key corresponding to the former host value.

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign rikatz for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[openshift-ci]

@jcmoraisjr: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[jcmoraisjr]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@jcmoraisjr: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-49738, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.22.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.22.0)
• bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @melvinjoseph86

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[alebedev87]

/assign @gcs278

[melvinjoseph86]

Able to reproduce the issue 'HostAlreadyClaimed' on a unfixed build and also tested the same on cluster using this PR.

➜  oc get clusterversion
NAME      VERSION                                                AVAILABLE   PROGRESSING   SINCE   STATUS
version   4.22.0-0-2026-02-25-140247-test-ci-ln-8iitiib-latest   True        False         130m    Cluster version is 4.22.0-0-2026-02-25-140247-test-ci-ln-8iitiib-latest

➜  oc patch ingresscontroller default -n openshift-ingress-operator --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"routeAdmission":{"wildcardPolicy":"WildcardsAllowed"}}}'
ingresscontroller.operator.openshift.io/default patched

➜  oc create -f webrc.yaml 
replicationcontroller/web-server-rc created
service/service-secure created
service/service-unsecure created

➜  oc expose service service-unsecure --name httpd-cm1                                                                                            
route.route.openshift.io/httpd-cm1 exposed
➜  oc expose service service-unsecure --name httpd-cm2
route.route.openshift.io/httpd-cm2 exposed
➜  oc get svc
NAME               TYPE           CLUSTER-IP      EXTERNAL-IP                            PORT(S)     AGE
kubernetes         ClusterIP      172.30.0.1      <none>                                 443/TCP     168m
openshift          ExternalName   <none>          kubernetes.default.svc.cluster.local   <none>      163m
service-secure     ClusterIP      172.30.68.65    <none>                                 27443/TCP   106s
service-unsecure   ClusterIP      172.30.131.71   <none>                                 27017/TCP   105s

➜  oc get routes
NAME        HOST/PORT                                                           PATH   SERVICES           PORT   TERMINATION   WILDCARD
httpd-cm1   httpd-cm1-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org          service-unsecure   http                 None
httpd-cm2   httpd-cm2-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org          service-unsecure   http                 None

➜  oc patch route httpd-cm1 --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"host":"httpd-cm2-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org"}}' 
route.route.openshift.io/httpd-cm1 patched
➜  oc patch route httpd-cm2 --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"host":"httpd-cm1-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org"}}'
route.route.openshift.io/httpd-cm2 patched

➜  oc get routes  
NAME        HOST/PORT                                                           PATH   SERVICES           PORT   TERMINATION   WILDCARD
httpd-cm1   httpd-cm2-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org          service-unsecure   http                 None
httpd-cm2   httpd-cm1-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org          service-unsecure   http                 None
➜  oc get routes -o json | jq -r '.items[] |.metadata.name,.spec.host,.status.ingress[].conditions[].message'
httpd-cm1
httpd-cm2-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org
null
httpd-cm2
httpd-cm1-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org

Hence marking as verified
/verified by @mjoseph
@jcmoraisjr Does the existing e2e will handle this change or do we need to modify/add

[openshift-ci-robot]

@melvinjoseph86: This PR has been marked as verified by @mjoseph.

Details

In response to this:

Able reproduce the issue 'HostAlreadyClaimed' on unfixed build and also tested the same on cluster using this PR.

➜  oc get clusterversion
NAME      VERSION                                                AVAILABLE   PROGRESSING   SINCE   STATUS
version   4.22.0-0-2026-02-25-140247-test-ci-ln-8iitiib-latest   True        False         130m    Cluster version is 4.22.0-0-2026-02-25-140247-test-ci-ln-8iitiib-latest

➜  oc patch ingresscontroller default -n openshift-ingress-operator --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"routeAdmission":{"wildcardPolicy":"WildcardsAllowed"}}}'
ingresscontroller.operator.openshift.io/default patched

➜  oc create -f webrc.yaml 
replicationcontroller/web-server-rc created
service/service-secure created
service/service-unsecure created

➜  oc expose service service-unsecure --name httpd-cm1                                                                                            
route.route.openshift.io/httpd-cm1 exposed
➜  oc expose service service-unsecure --name httpd-cm2
route.route.openshift.io/httpd-cm2 exposed
➜  oc get svc
NAME               TYPE           CLUSTER-IP      EXTERNAL-IP                            PORT(S)     AGE
kubernetes         ClusterIP      172.30.0.1      <none>                                 443/TCP     168m
openshift          ExternalName   <none>          kubernetes.default.svc.cluster.local   <none>      163m
service-secure     ClusterIP      172.30.68.65    <none>                                 27443/TCP   106s
service-unsecure   ClusterIP      172.30.131.71   <none>                                 27017/TCP   105s

➜  oc get routes
NAME        HOST/PORT                                                           PATH   SERVICES           PORT   TERMINATION   WILDCARD
httpd-cm1   httpd-cm1-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org          service-unsecure   http                 None
httpd-cm2   httpd-cm2-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org          service-unsecure   http                 None

➜  oc patch route httpd-cm1 --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"host":"httpd-cm2-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org"}}' 
route.route.openshift.io/httpd-cm1 patched
➜  oc patch route httpd-cm2 --type=merge -p '{"spec":{"host":"httpd-cm1-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org"}}'
route.route.openshift.io/httpd-cm2 patched

➜  oc get routes  
NAME        HOST/PORT                                                           PATH   SERVICES           PORT   TERMINATION   WILDCARD
httpd-cm1   httpd-cm2-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org          service-unsecure   http                 None
httpd-cm2   httpd-cm1-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org          service-unsecure   http                 None
➜  oc get routes -o json | jq -r '.items[] |.metadata.name,.spec.host,.status.ingress[].conditions[].message'
httpd-cm1
httpd-cm2-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org
null
httpd-cm2
httpd-cm1-default.apps.ci-ln-8iitiib-76ef8.aws-4.ci.openshift.org

Hence marking as verified
/verified by @mjoseph
@jcmoraisjr Does the existing e2e will handle this change or do we need to modify/add

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[jcmoraisjr]

@melvinjoseph86 I'm not sure we have an e2e that covers this scenario, it was unknown for us up to now. So it'd need to be added if we want the coverage.