lc trie: return a vector of tags #2612
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -103,7 +103,6 @@ envoy_cc_library( | |
| ":cidr_range_lib", | ||
| ":utility_lib", | ||
| "//source/common/common:assert_lib", | ||
| ], | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
This file contains hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -32,17 +32,23 @@ class LcTrieTest : public testing::Test { | |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| void | ||
| expectIPAndTag(const std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>>& test_output) { | ||
| for (const auto& kv : test_output) { | ||
| EXPECT_EQ(kv.second, trie_->getTags(Utility::parseInternetAddress(kv.first))); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| void expectIPAndNoTag(const std::vector<std::string>& test_output) { | ||
| for (const auto& ip : test_output) { | ||
| EXPECT_EQ(0, trie_->getTags(Utility::parseInternetAddress(ip)).size()); | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. My only thought on the test refactor is that if multi-vector responses are coming, you may want to refactor expectIPAndTag to actually take a vector, rather than splitting this into "one string" "empty vector" and "multi-string response" test cases. Your call if it's easier this way.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. I was able to implement #2614 on top of this change by merging multiple results into a single vector. I think that will suffice for the IP tagging filter.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. I got rid of expectIPandNoTag() and kept ExpectIPandTags(). It checks the content of the tag vector against the expected vector, empty vectors are supported too! |
||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| std::unique_ptr<LcTrie> trie_; | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO(ccaraman): Add a performance and memory benchmark test. | ||
| // Use the default constructor values. | ||
| TEST_F(LcTrieTest, IPv4Defaults) { | ||
| std::vector<std::vector<std::string>> cidr_range_strings = { | ||
|
|
@@ -64,17 +70,17 @@ TEST_F(LcTrieTest, IPv4Defaults) { | |
| }; | ||
| setup(cidr_range_strings); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>> test_case_hit = { | ||
| {"0.0.0.0", {"tag_0"}}, {"16.0.0.1", {"tag_1"}}, {"40.0.0.255", {"tag_2"}}, | ||
| {"64.0.130.0", {"tag_3"}}, {"96.0.0.10", {"tag_4"}}, {"112.0.0.0", {"tag_5"}}, | ||
| {"128.0.0.1", {"tag_6"}}, {"160.0.0.1", {"tag_7"}}, {"164.255.0.0", {"tag_8"}}, | ||
| {"168.0.0.0", {"tag_9"}}, {"176.0.0.1", {"tag_10"}}, {"184.0.0.1", {"tag_11"}}, | ||
| {"192.0.0.0", {"tag_12"}}, {"232.0.80.0", {"tag_13"}}, {"233.0.0.1", {"tag_14"}}, | ||
| }; | ||
| expectIPAndTag(test_case_hit); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::string> test_case_no_hits = {"::1"}; | ||
| expectIPAndNoTag(test_case_no_hits); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // There was a bug in the C++ port that didn't update the index for the next address in the trie. | ||
|
|
@@ -101,17 +107,17 @@ TEST_F(LcTrieTest, RootBranchingFactor) { | |
| }; | ||
| setup(cidr_range_strings, fill_factor, root_branching_factor); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>> test_case_hit = { | ||
| {"0.0.0.0", {"tag_0"}}, {"16.0.0.1", {"tag_1"}}, {"40.0.0.255", {"tag_2"}}, | ||
| {"64.0.130.0", {"tag_3"}}, {"96.0.0.10", {"tag_4"}}, {"112.0.0.0", {"tag_5"}}, | ||
| {"128.0.0.1", {"tag_6"}}, {"160.0.0.1", {"tag_7"}}, {"164.255.0.0", {"tag_8"}}, | ||
| {"168.0.0.0", {"tag_9"}}, {"176.0.0.1", {"tag_10"}}, {"184.0.0.1", {"tag_11"}}, | ||
| {"192.0.0.0", {"tag_12"}}, {"232.0.80.0", {"tag_13"}}, {"233.0.0.1", {"tag_14"}}, | ||
| }; | ||
| expectIPAndTag(test_case_hit); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::string> test_case_no_hits = {"::1"}; | ||
| expectIPAndNoTag(test_case_no_hits); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| TEST_F(LcTrieTest, IPv4AddressSizeBoundaries) { | ||
|
|
@@ -122,11 +128,16 @@ TEST_F(LcTrieTest, IPv4AddressSizeBoundaries) { | |
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| setup(cidr_range_strings); | ||
| std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>> test_case_hit = { | ||
| {"205.251.192.100", {"tag_1"}}, | ||
| {"10.255.255.255", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| {"52.220.191.10", {"tag_1"}}, | ||
| {"10.255.255.254", {"tag_2"}}, | ||
| }; | ||
| expectIPAndTag(test_case_hit); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::string> test_case_no_hits = {"18.232.0.255"}; | ||
| expectIPAndNoTag(test_case_no_hits); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| TEST_F(LcTrieTest, IPv4Boundaries) { | ||
|
|
@@ -137,9 +148,9 @@ TEST_F(LcTrieTest, IPv4Boundaries) { | |
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| setup(cidr_range_strings); | ||
| std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>> test_case = { | ||
| {"10.255.255.255", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| {"205.251.192.100", {"tag_2"}}, | ||
| }; | ||
| expectIPAndTag(test_case); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
@@ -151,14 +162,15 @@ TEST_F(LcTrieTest, IPv6) { | |
| }; | ||
| setup(cidr_range_strings); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>> test_case = { | ||
| {"2406:da00:2000::1", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| {"2001:abcd:ef01:2345::1", {"tag_1"}}, | ||
| {"::1", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| }; | ||
| expectIPAndTag(test_case); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::string> test_case_no_hits = {"1.2.3.4", "2400:ffff:ff00::"}; | ||
| expectIPAndNoTag(test_case_no_hits); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| TEST_F(LcTrieTest, IPv6AddressSizeBoundaries) { | ||
|
|
@@ -169,14 +181,16 @@ TEST_F(LcTrieTest, IPv6AddressSizeBoundaries) { | |
| }; | ||
| setup(cidr_range_strings); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>> test_case = { | ||
| {"::1", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| {"2406:da00:2000::1", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| {"2001:abcd:ef01:2345::1", {"tag_1"}}, | ||
| {"::", {"tag_2"}}, | ||
| }; | ||
| expectIPAndTag(test_case); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::string> test_case_no_hits = {"::2"}; | ||
| expectIPAndNoTag(test_case_no_hits); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| TEST_F(LcTrieTest, IPv6Boundaries) { | ||
|
|
@@ -187,10 +201,10 @@ TEST_F(LcTrieTest, IPv6Boundaries) { | |
| }; | ||
| setup(cidr_range_strings); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>> test_case = { | ||
| {"::1", {"tag_2"}}, | ||
| {"::2", {"tag_2"}}, | ||
| {"8000::1", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| }; | ||
| expectIPAndTag(test_case); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
@@ -202,13 +216,16 @@ TEST_F(LcTrieTest, CatchAllIPv4Prefix) { | |
| }; | ||
| setup(cidr_range_strings); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>> test_case = { | ||
| {"2001:abcd:ef01:2345::1", {"tag_1"}}, | ||
| {"1.2.3.4", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| {"255.255.255.255", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
|
|
||
| }; | ||
| expectIPAndTag(test_case); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::string> test_case_no_hits = {"2400:ffff:ff00::"}; | ||
| expectIPAndNoTag(test_case_no_hits); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| TEST_F(LcTrieTest, CatchAllIPv6Prefix) { | ||
|
|
@@ -218,13 +235,15 @@ TEST_F(LcTrieTest, CatchAllIPv6Prefix) { | |
| }; | ||
| setup(cidr_range_strings); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>> test_case = { | ||
| {"2001:abcd:ef01:2345::1", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| {"1.2.3.4", {"tag_1"}}, | ||
| {"abcd::343", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| }; | ||
| expectIPAndTag(test_case); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::string> test_case_no_hits = {"255.255.255.255"}; | ||
| expectIPAndNoTag(test_case_no_hits); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| TEST_F(LcTrieTest, BothIpvVersions) { | ||
|
|
@@ -236,12 +255,18 @@ TEST_F(LcTrieTest, BothIpvVersions) { | |
| }; | ||
| setup(cidr_range_strings); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>> test_case = { | ||
| {"205.251.192.100", {"tag_3"}}, {"10.255.255.255", {"tag_2"}}, | ||
| {"52.220.191.10", {"tag_3"}}, {"2406:da00:2000::1", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| {"2001:abcd:ef01:2345::1", {"tag_1"}}, {"::1", {"tag_0"}}, | ||
| }; | ||
| expectIPAndTag(test_case); | ||
|
|
||
| std::vector<std::string> test_case_no_hits = { | ||
| "18.232.0.255", | ||
| "2400:ffff:ff00::", | ||
| }; | ||
| expectIPAndNoTag(test_case_no_hits); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| TEST_F(LcTrieTest, NestedPrefixes) { | ||
|
|
||
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.
I thought the pattern here was to give the type immediately after the @param or @return keyword, e.g.
at least I've seen this elsewhere in the codebase. I'm not sure what script or program processes this style though.
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.
This is a good question. I don't know what peoples preferences are these days. I'll find out.
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.
In our local chatter, no one understands why we are repeating the types in the comments; and I learned they are not needed for any scripts that generate API doc currently.
IMO your form is better and we should convert everything to it.
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.
This has come up a couple times. Matt commented that he started the policy out of habit, because some script (super old doxygen from 1973??) output better docs if it was included.
I think we should remove those types from all the docs. They're not providing any value, and they can get out-of-date from the actual types on the function.
If not, we should make a linter that enforces them.
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.
Agreed, i'll keep it as is.
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.
Possibly worth a call-out on envoy-dev or maintainers - I'm so happy to kill off that rule, and hadn't realized it was "outdated" so was enforcing.