-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[grpc-transcoder] Add option to pack unknown parameters into HttpBody extension #34999
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
77ec6f2
[grpc-transcoder] Add option to pack unknown parameters into HttpBody…
ravenblackx f9ddcf3
Rename to UnknownQueryParams, allow multiple values
ravenblackx a179294
Add a dot-param to the test
ravenblackx aeb9991
Format
ravenblackx 8625adb
Mimic existing protodoc
ravenblackx File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO rather than override we should reject a config which suggests doing 2 different things to unknown config params.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That makes a transition to this new behavior difficult for us, because config and binary can be pushed separately and we're currently operating on a patch that does the new behavior with the old config.
The transition plan for me is to push a new config that specifies both the things, then push the new binary, thereby rolling onto the non-patch implementation of the behavior.
I'd be much more comfortable if I could make this change in a followup if that would be okay?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think API changes which make previously valid config invalid are disallowed unfortunately.
Options would be to have a runtime guard default-false for the allow behavior, and you could flip it internally, or just allow it and I will put up with it with mild crankiness as I have in the myriad other instances I've asked folks to not allow for confusing behavior and the harsh realities of production have made it impossible =P
As a compromise how about at least logging a warning below if the prior config knob is ignored?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I started to do that, then realized it doesn't make sense - "warning, your ignore directive is being ignored in favor of another setting that does still ignore it in the way you meant".
So instead I made the protodoc less confusing about what overrides what; capture doesn't really override ignore, it just also does ignore whether you set both or not. The only thing it really overrides is the same thing ignore also overrides, and that wasn't documented on ignore, it was only documented on the overridden field, so I've made the documentation for the new field match that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
well in that case there should be a warning for both ignore and send iff strict but there's prior art for not warning about that so I'm just going to declare myself an api grinch and LGTM this.