Skip to content

protobuf: allow relaxed opaque message with no properties #17122

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

Merged
htuch merged 3 commits into from
Jul 9, 2021
+34 −3
Merged

protobuf: allow relaxed opaque message with no properties #17122

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ea1f1c6
protobuf: allow relaxed opaque message with no properties
Shikugawa Jun 24, 2021
95499b8
fix
Shikugawa Jun 29, 2021
dbea6c8
fix test
Shikugawa Jul 2, 2021
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
10 changes: 7 additions & 3 deletions source/common/protobuf/utility.cc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -774,11 +774,15 @@ bool redactOpaque(Protobuf::Message* message, bool ancestor_is_sensitive,
const auto* reflection = message->GetReflection();
const auto* type_url_field_descriptor = opaque_descriptor->FindFieldByName("type_url");
const auto* value_field_descriptor = opaque_descriptor->FindFieldByName("value");
ASSERT(type_url_field_descriptor != nullptr && value_field_descriptor != nullptr &&
reflection->HasField(*message, type_url_field_descriptor));
if (!reflection->HasField(*message, value_field_descriptor)) {
ASSERT(type_url_field_descriptor != nullptr && value_field_descriptor != nullptr);
if (!reflection->HasField(*message, type_url_field_descriptor) &&
!reflection->HasField(*message, value_field_descriptor)) {
Comment thread
Shikugawa marked this conversation as resolved.
return true;
}
if (!reflection->HasField(*message, type_url_field_descriptor) ||
!reflection->HasField(*message, value_field_descriptor)) {
return false;

@htuch htuch Jun 29, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this case covered in test?

@Shikugawa Shikugawa Jul 2, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

added value exists but type_url not exists on typed_struct

}

// Try to find a descriptor for `type_url` in the pool and instantiate a new message of the
// correct concrete type.
Expand Down
14 changes: 14 additions & 0 deletions test/common/protobuf/utility_test.cc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1001,6 +1001,20 @@ type_url: type.googleapis.com/envoy.unknown.Message
EXPECT_TRUE(TestUtility::protoEqual(expected, actual));
}

TEST_F(ProtobufUtilityTest, RedactEmptyTypeUrlTypedStruct) {
udpa::type::v1::TypedStruct actual;
udpa::type::v1::TypedStruct expected = actual;

@dmitri-d dmitri-d Jun 25, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here and the test below: expected gets a copy of actual after it's been (potentially) modified by the call to MessageUtil::redact. The equality comparison on the next line will always return true in this case. You probably want to reverse the order of lines 1006 and 1007? I think the return value of MessageUtil::redact should be verified too.

@htuch htuch Jun 27, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1

@Shikugawa Shikugawa Jun 29, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ah sorry. I overlooked.

MessageUtil::redact(actual);
EXPECT_TRUE(TestUtility::protoEqual(expected, actual));
}

TEST_F(ProtobufUtilityTest, RedactEmptyTypeUrlAny) {
ProtobufWkt::Any actual;
MessageUtil::redact(actual);
ProtobufWkt::Any expected = actual;
EXPECT_TRUE(TestUtility::protoEqual(expected, actual));
}

// Deeply-nested opaque protos (`Any` and `TypedStruct`), which are reified using the
// `DynamicMessageFactory`, should be redacted correctly.
TEST_F(ProtobufUtilityTest, RedactDeeplyNestedOpaqueProtos) {
Expand Down