Skip to content

cache: fix cache proto's max_body_bytes type #12273

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
enozcan wants to merge 7 commits into from
Closed

cache: fix cache proto's max_body_bytes type #12273

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
b6d9b66
Change max_body_bytes type to uint64.
enozcan Jul 24, 2020
e04f9c6
Generate shadow api.
enozcan Jul 24, 2020
86fcb3d
Merge branch 'master' into config-type-fix
enozcan Jul 28, 2020
29735fe
Merge branch 'master' into config-type-fix
enozcan Aug 10, 2020
9f8f327
Run proto_format after master merge.
enozcan Aug 10, 2020
0346432
Merge branch 'master' into config-type-fix
enozcan Sep 1, 2020
c86bc41
Revert v2 changes.
enozcan Sep 1, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion api/envoy/extensions/filters/http/cache/v3alpha/cache.proto
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -80,5 +80,5 @@ message CacheConfig {
//
// Max body size the cache filter will insert into a cache. 0 means unlimited (though the cache
// storage implementation may have its own limit beyond which it will reject insertions).
uint32 max_body_bytes = 4;
uint64 max_body_bytes = 4;
Copy link
Contributor

@jmarantz jmarantz Aug 15, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm wondering if we need to deprecate this field and make a new one with the different type. @htuch ?

Copy link
Member

@htuch htuch Aug 18, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the question is do we realistically expect to have cache objects > 4GB? If yes, then let's do this new/old deprecation dance, otherwise let's handle the type mismatch in the implementation.

Copy link
Contributor

@jmarantz jmarantz Sep 18, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@toddmgreer Should we commit to 4G limit in cacheable object sizes? Seems OK to me.

Maybe in practicality, as there are no real impls of this filter yet, it doesn't matter if we change the type as there's no outstanding data to be compatible with.

Copy link
Contributor

@toddmgreer toddmgreer Jan 19, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know why anyone would want to set a size limit that's higher than 4G, but I have no objection to allowing it. I also have no objection to leaving it as is.

}
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion api/envoy/extensions/filters/http/cache/v4alpha/cache.proto
View file
Open in desktop

Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.

2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion generated_api_shadow/envoy/extensions/filters/http/cache/v3alpha/cache.proto
View file
Open in desktop

Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.

2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion generated_api_shadow/envoy/extensions/filters/http/cache/v4alpha/cache.proto
View file
Open in desktop

Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.