Merge pull request 'feat(keycloak): one hostname per realm, in both routing modes' (#125) from feat/keycloak-realm-hosts into main

ci/httproute/keycloak.yaml

@@ -30,11 +30,29 @@
 #     parentRefs fall back to httpRoute.parentRefs below - the empty-admin
 #     branch, which is the one an installation hits unless it wants an
 #     internal Gateway.
-#   - both routes' backendRef is checked against the serving Service of the
-#     same render. Both point at the SAME Service, by PORT NUMBER
+#   - every route's backendRef is checked against the serving Service of the
+#     same render. They all point at the SAME Service, by PORT NUMBER
 #     (keycloak.ports.http) rather than by the name "http" the Ingress uses,
 #     because backendRefs takes a PortNumber - so this overlay is what holds
 #     that number against the Service's.
+#   - THE TWO REALM ROUTES (Gitea #122), which come from keycloak.realmHosts in
+#     the fixture rather than from this file. Nothing is repeated here on
+#     purpose: the fixture installs them as Ingress objects and this overlay
+#     turns the same two entries into HTTPRoutes, so one definition covers both
+#     modes and the two halves cannot drift into describing different hostnames.
+#     What the routes add to the two above is a SECOND RULE SHAPE - an Exact
+#     match on / carrying a RequestRedirect filter and no backendRefs at all.
+#     That rule is reported as "not checked" by this test, correctly and by
+#     design: a filter-only rule has no backend to resolve. The assertion it
+#     does earn is on its sibling rule, the PathPrefix one that points at the
+#     Service. The prefix/redirect pairing check of #118 does NOT fire for these
+#     routes and must not: it is scoped to rules that STRIP a prefix with a
+#     ReplacePrefixMatch rewrite, and these strip nothing - they redirect the
+#     bare root of a hostname that serves one realm.
+#     The entries also cover the two Ingress-mode forms (one with a
+#     clusterIssuer, one without) and what this test holds about them is their
+#     INERTNESS: neither tlsSecretName nor clusterIssuer nor the per-entry
+#     annotation may appear anywhere in a rendered route.
 #
 # NOT covered here, and it cannot be: that either hostname answers. No Gateway
 # controller runs in CI, no route reaches "Accepted: True", and the

ci/keycloak/test-values.yaml

@@ -203,6 +203,43 @@ keycloak:
       mountPath: /opt/keycloak/themes/ci-theme
       readOnly: true
 
+  # TWO REALM HOSTNAMES (Gitea #122), and they are set HERE rather than in the
+  # Gateway overlay on purpose: ci/httproute/keycloak.yaml is applied on top of
+  # this file, so one definition covers BOTH modes - two Ingress objects in this
+  # install, two HTTPRoutes in the render-only test, from the same two entries.
+  # Defining them in the overlay instead would leave the Ingress half of the
+  # feature with no coverage at all, and it is the half that carries the
+  # required value and the convention deviation.
+  #
+  # WHAT THIS INSTALL ADDS TO THE RENDER TEST, which is the part a cluster-less
+  # check cannot reach: the API server accepts both objects, including the
+  # Service port named BY NAME ("http") - a typo there is invisible until
+  # somebody opens the URL - and the second entry's cert-manager annotation does
+  # not make the apply fail in a cluster without cert-manager. No ingress
+  # controller answers in CI, so neither app-root nor the proxy buffers are
+  # exercised; that is the same gap the two objects above have.
+  #
+  # THE TWO ENTRIES ARE THE TWO FORMS, deliberately:
+  #   [0] NO clusterIssuer - the normal case, where the certificate comes from
+  #       elsewhere (a wildcard, another release) and this object only consumes
+  #       the secret. It also carries a per-entry annotation, which is what
+  #       makes the per-entry (rather than chart-global) annotations block a
+  #       tested shape rather than an intended one.
+  #   [1] WITH clusterIssuer - the case where the certificate is issued for this
+  #       entry's own secret.
+  # Both are inert in Gateway mode, and the render test is what holds that: the
+  # routes it renders from these entries must show no trace of either field.
+  realmHosts:
+    - host: realm-one.ci.example.com
+      realm: ci-realm-one
+      tlsSecretName: tls-ci-realm-shared-ingress
+      annotations:
+        nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-buffer-size: 16k
+    - host: realm-two.ci.example.com
+      realm: ci-realm-two
+      tlsSecretName: tls-ci-realm-two-ingress
+      clusterIssuer: ci-selfsigned
+
 ingress:
   # Left ON although no ingress controller answers in CI: the point is that
   # both objects are accepted and that the Service port they name BY NAME