Exactly! On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 2:41 PM ZhengSong Tu <[email protected]> wrote:
> I got. you mean that when the request matched route1 and route2, > APISIX use route1 to match the request first. > > *ZhengSong Tu* > My GitHub: https://github.com/tzssangglass > Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/apisix > > ZhengSong Tu <[email protected]> 于2021年11月23日周二 下午7:02写道： > > > > AFAIK, in this case, the logical operator of the elements in route1's > > vars is and, the request must reach these three conditions before it > > will be captured by route1. so it has nothing to do with route2's > > vars. > > > > > > *ZhengSong Tu* > > My GitHub: https://github.com/tzssangglass > > Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/apisix > > > > Li Yang <[email protected]> 于2021年11月23日周二 下午4:01写道： > > > > > > Hi ZhengSong, > > > > > > Sure, I can give you an example. > > > > > > Suppose we have two routes: > > > > > > { > > > "name": "route1", > > > "uri": "/_graphql", > > > "vars": [ > > > ["graphql_operation", "==", "query"], > > > ["graphql_name", "==", "getRepo"], > > > ["graphql_root_fields", "has", "owner"] > > > ], > > > "upstream": { > > > "type": "roundrobin", > > > "nodes": { > > > "39.97.63.215:80 <http://39.97.63.215/>": 1 > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > > > > and > > > > > > { > > > "name": "route2", > > > "uri": "/_graphql", > > > "vars": [ > > > ["graphql_operation", "==", "query"] > > > ], > > > "upstream": { > > > "type": "roundrobin", > > > "nodes": { > > > "39.97.63.215:81": 1 > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > It's obvious route1's matching rules is a proper superset of route2's > > > matching rules, > > > so route1 should be the one with higher priority. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 11:56 PM ZhengSong Tu <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > hi, yang. > > > > > > > > > Route X should be matched first if and only if route X's matching > > > > > rule set is a proper superset of route Y's matching rule set.* > > > > > > > > I have doubts about this, can you show some example? > > > > > > > > *ZhengSong Tu* > > > > My GitHub: https://github.com/tzssangglass > > > > Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/apisix > > > > > > > > Chao Zhang <[email protected]> 于2021年11月22日周一 下午3:44写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think a strict superset is difficult to define. We may start > from a > > > > > simple way to do it. > > > > > > > > > > Chao Zhang > > > > > https://github.com/tokers > > > > > > > > > > On November 19, 2021 at 15:50:34, Li Yang ([email protected]) > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Community, > > > > > > > > > > Currently in APISIX, there is a built-in prioritization of routes > by > > > > > the matching uri. > > > > > For example, if the requested uri is /foo/bar, and the server side > routes > > > > > contain /foo/bar and /foo/* and /*. > > > > > Although all 3 uri patterns match /foo/bar, only the exact match > /foo/bar > > > > > will be chosen. That design makes > > > > > much sense since a stricter route takes priority than a looser one. > > > > > But when we have route matching on fields other than uri, the > > > > > priority will only depend on the priority field. > > > > > For example, consider 2 routes: > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > "name": "route1", > > > > > "uri": "/_graphql", > > > > > "vars": [ > > > > > ["graphql_operation", "==", "query"], > > > > > ["graphql_name", "==", "getRepo"], > > > > > ["graphql_root_fields", "has", "owner"] > > > > > ], > > > > > "upstream": { > > > > > "type": "roundrobin", > > > > > "nodes": { > > > > > "39.97.63.215:80": 1 > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > "name": "route2", > > > > > "uri": "/_graphql", > > > > > "upstream": { > > > > > "type": "roundrobin", > > > > > "nodes": { > > > > > "39.97.63.215:81": 1 > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > A request which matches both route1 and route2 will possibly hit > > > > > route2 since we don't have prioritization on vars. > > > > > > > > > > Although priority setting can help here, if a big organization > > > > > shares the same APISIX, it will be difficult for all > > > > > the developers to agree on how to use the priorities since every > priority > > > > > itself can impact others in an unexpected way. > > > > > > > > > > Here I want to propose that we provide a smart prioritization: > > > > > > > > > > * If route X and route Y share the same URI, their priority will be > > > > > determined like this: * > > > > > * Route X should be matched first if and only if route X's matching > > > > > rule set is a proper superset of route Y's matching rule set.* > > > > > > > > > > Relevant discussion: https://github.com/apache/apisix/issues/3865 > > > > >
