Geo: Move /api/v4/internal/geo_proxy to /api/v4/geo/proxy
What does this MR do?
This MR moves /api/v4/internal/geo_proxy to /api/v4/geo/proxy.
Because /api/v4/internal and /lib/api/internal/base.rb are only
meant for GitLab Shell.
Since Workhorse doesn't know whether it's in a FOSS or EE context, we need to implement the endpoint in FOSS to avoid 401s due to the route not existing.
So a more appropriate location is /api/v4/geo/proxy and
/lib/api/geo.rb. The existing geo endpoints are now in an EE concern.
This MR also reuses the Workhorse authorization helper and Workhorse response content type.
The affected endpoint is not used or released yet, so no changelog is needed.
Where does this fit in the epic?
| Description | Issue | |
|---|---|---|
Add endpoint /api/v4/geo/proxy
|
#324664 (closed) | !63343 (merged) You are here |
Determine if this is a Geo Proxy by calling /api/v4/geo/proxy
|
#329670 (closed) | !60769 (merged) |
| If this is a Geo Proxy, then use the Geo Proxy routing table | #329672 (closed) | !63321 (merged) |
| Before we can remove the environment variable, we must add caching of the result of the request | #329671 (closed) |
Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
Conformity
-
I have included a changelog entry, or it's not needed. (Does this MR need a changelog?) -
I have added/updated documentation, or it's not needed. (Is documentation required?) -
I have properly separated EE content from FOSS, or this MR is FOSS only. (Where should EE code go?) -
I have added information for database reviewers in the MR description, or it's not needed. (Does this MR have database related changes?) -
I have self-reviewed this MR per code review guidelines. -
This MR does not harm performance, or I have asked a reviewer to help assess the performance impact. (Merge request performance guidelines) -
I have followed the style guides. -
This change is backwards compatible across updates, or this does not apply.
Availability and Testing
-
I have added/updated tests following the Testing Guide, or it's not needed. (Consider all test levels. See the Test Planning Process.)
Edited by Michael Kozono