Add worker connections field to NginxProxy

[sarthyparty]

Proposed changes

Problem: Users were unable to configure worker connections

Solution: Add field to nginxproxy that allows users to configure worker connections. Read that field and put it into the main conf.

Testing: Manual testing and unit tests for the new code

Closes #3371

Checklist

Before creating a PR, run through this checklist and mark each as complete.

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have checked that all unit tests pass after adding my changes
• I have updated necessary documentation
• I have rebased my branch onto main
• I will ensure my PR is targeting the main branch and pulling from my branch from my own fork

Release notes

If this PR introduces a change that affects users and needs to be mentioned in the release notes,
please add a brief note that summarizes the change.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.87%. Comparing base (947cfdd) to head (81addf3).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3611   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   86.86%   86.87%           
=======================================
  Files         127      127           
  Lines       15271    15287   +16     
  Branches       62       62           
=======================================
+ Hits        13265    13280   +15     
- Misses       1851     1852    +1     
  Partials      155      155           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[salonichf5]

we need to add validation check for the field workerConnection, just to ensure that any value other than the valid range is rejected by the spec

[sjberman]

we need to add validation check for the field workerConnection, just to ensure that any value other than the valid range is rejected by the spec

@salonichf5 I would disagree. This validation that you linked is mainly to ensure secure string values in nginx config to avoid injection. In this case, we are using an integer, and nginx has no limitations on the value (that I'm aware of). So in that case, I think it's fine to let our CRD schema handle validation upfront.

[salonichf5]

we need to add validation check for the field workerConnection, just to ensure that any value other than the valid range is rejected by the spec

@salonichf5 I would disagree. This validation that you linked is mainly to ensure secure string values in nginx config to avoid injection. In this case, we are using an integer, and nginx has no limitations on the value (that I'm aware of). So in that case, I think it's fine to let our CRD schema handle validation upfront.

sounds good, my initial assumption was to do this for all fields. But the above makes sense.

[sjberman]

@salonichf5 Totally fair. It's a conversation we've gone back and forth on in the past. I think we settled on doing the extra validation on fields that could represent security concerns, otherwise let the CRD schema handle it.

[ciarams87]

🔥