Please note that we're already in Test Freeze for the release-1.34 branch. This means every merged PR will be automatically fast-forwarded via the periodic ci-fast-forward job to the release branch of the upcoming v1.34.0 release.

Fast forwards are scheduled to happen every 6 hours, whereas the most recent run was: Thu Aug 7 08:56:53 UTC 2025.

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: justinsb
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign cheftako for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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

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.

i think this looks ok, do we have any idea about the coverage of SIG owned providers that are using the GetLoadBalancerName interface?

I can try to take a look, but I want to point out that we specifically need to worry about providers that use GetLoadBalancerName through our LoadBalancer Interface (I believe). In other words, nothing should stop (say) AWS from implementing GetLoadBalancerName on their load balancer implementation, it just isn't part of the standard LoadBalancer interface. So we're looking for generic controller implementations that use LoadBalancer and GetLoadBalancerName - and I think the canonical one is in this repo.

Of course if I'm wrong about this then I don't think we want this PR!

The reason for this PR, BTW, is that on GCP we have many objects, and if we are to implement multiple protocols then we need two ForwardingRules, and thus there will definitely be two names. It's not the end of the world to keep this method (we still have a "base name" which we will use for singleton objects), but I realized that we aren't actually using this method here so it's just a cause for (my) confusion.

In other words, nothing should stop (say) AWS from implementing GetLoadBalancerName on their load balancer implementation, it just isn't part of the standard LoadBalancer interface. So we're looking for generic controller implementations that use LoadBalancer and GetLoadBalancerName - and I think the canonical one is in this repo.

that makes good sense to me. my concern, albeit perhaps unfounded, is that there is some cloud provider using the default implementation. i /think/ the changes here shouldn't affect that, but i was just curious.

The reason for this PR, BTW, is that on GCP we have many objects, and if we are to implement multiple protocols then we need two ForwardingRules, and thus there will definitely be two names. It's not the end of the world to keep this method (we still have a "base name" which we will use for singleton objects), but I realized that we aren't actually using this method here so it's just a cause for (my) confusion.

makes sense, and i tend to agree about the rationale.