Service port standard naming for Istio

[mattermost]

Service port standard naming for Istio

[Szymongib]

Hey @mjnagel, thanks for reporting the issue.

I have worked with Istio before so I am aware of this behavior.

We are thinking of refactoring CR to define Service customization in a similar way as we did with Ingress (similarly to your second proposition) as we have requests for some other customizations. Not sure when we will be able to go about it as we would probably like to do it in the new CR version so that we can break compatibility for some features like useServiceLoadbalancer.

For your case tho, I see that there is another way of defining the protocol, not just by port name but with the use of appProtocol on a Service port as mentioned here.

I think we could do that just by modifying the Service created by the Operator and holding off with specifying additional customization for now.

Let me know if that would work for you.

[mjnagel]

Ah good catch. I can test that out today and open a PR with the appProtocol assuming it looks good on my end.

[mjnagel]

@Szymongib adding appProtocol worked perfectly in my dev environment, opened #267 to add that 😄 . I put it on both services, which I think is correct although I've never used the LB one in my testing.

[Szymongib]

Awesome! Thanks a lot @mjnagel we will have a look!