docs: add ListenerSet to SectionName interpretation table

[apkatsikas]

What type of PR is this?
/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:

LocalPolicyTargetReferenceWithSectionName documents how SectionName is interpreted for Gateway, HTTPRoute, and Service, but omits ListenerSet. Since ListenerSet listeners are addressed by name via SectionName, the same as Gateway, it should appear in the table.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: apkatsikas
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

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: apkatsikas / name: apkatsikas (0676de3)

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @apkatsikas!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @apkatsikas. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work.

Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

[snorwin]

/ok-to-test

[snorwin]

/cc

[snorwin]

@apkatsikas thanks for the PR, could you please run make generate.

[apkatsikas]

@apkatsikas thanks for the PR, could you please run make generate.

7dabb28

[apkatsikas]

/test pull-gateway-api-verify

[k8s-ci-robot]

@apkatsikas: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-gateway-api-verify	7dabb28	link	true	/test pull-gateway-api-verify

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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.

[apkatsikas]

@snorwin it looks like committing the make generate output is causing the verify-crdify check to fail. Is that expected behavior for a doc-only change like this, or should I not be committing the CRD YAML regeneration here?

[apkatsikas]

@apkatsikas the API docs are part of the CRDs, so they need to be committed together.

@snorwin I ran crdify locally and everything passes except the description check. Is there a way to handle this, or is this something that needs to be addressed in the check itself?

[snorwin]

@rikatz as we're often tweaking and refining descriptions, can we disable verify-crdify on descriptions?

[apkatsikas]

Hi @snorwin and @rikatz, any updates on this?

[rikatz]

hum we probably can disable crdify, I may be able to take a look and disable it tomorrow.