Edgeview App needs latest pillar vendor files

[naiming-zededa]

• import the latest changes in zedroutertypes.go for app IP display to work
• fix an issue of single instance JWT file but user specifying instance number > 1

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 798 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (0f7bbc4) 20.50% compared to head (a0c645b) 20.51%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3536      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   20.50%   20.51%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         208      208              
  Lines       45381    45381              
==========================================
+ Hits         9307     9312       +5     
+ Misses      35392    35387       -5     
  Partials      682      682              

Files	Coverage Δ
.../github.com/lf-edge/eve/pkg/pillar/types/errors.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...m/lf-edge/eve/pkg/pillar/types/cachedresolvedip.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ithub.com/lf-edge/eve/pkg/pillar/types/conntest.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...dor/github.com/lf-edge/eve/pkg/pillar/types/dns.go	36.47% <36.47%> (ø)
...dor/github.com/lf-edge/eve/pkg/pillar/types/dpc.go	9.33% <9.33%> (ø)

... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[eriknordmark]

LGTM.

Is the missing instid > 1 check a regression from earlier? I'm asking to determine whether this is something we should consider backporting to stable releases.

[milan-zededa]

LGTM.

Is the missing instid > 1 check a regression from earlier? I'm asking to determine whether this is something we should consider backporting to stable releases.

I think we should also backport this to 11.0 (if it is going to be stable release). Otherwise app command will not work in that particular version due to underlay renaming.

[naiming-zededa]

LGTM.

Is the missing instid > 1 check a regression from earlier? I'm asking to determine whether this is something we should consider backporting to stable releases.

this thing has been there for quite a while. I only saw this issue with debug Andrew's problem starting a tcp session. I don't think this is a big deal.

[naiming-zededa]

LGTM.
Is the missing instid > 1 check a regression from earlier? I'm asking to determine whether this is something we should consider backporting to stable releases.

this thing has been there for quite a while. I only saw this issue with debug Andrew's problem starting a tcp session. I don't think this is a big deal.

if needed, sure. May be this is ok, since we'll make the LTS for version 11 later, and that is more people will use.