-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.4k
add messageValidationContext into CommonFactoryContext so xDS could u… #9621
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
Changes from 3 commits
d21e1fd
db33091
e148ac1
455dc26
f51355e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ class FilterChainFactoryContextImpl : public Configuration::FilterChainFactoryCo | |
| envoy::config::core::v3alpha::TrafficDirection direction() const override; | ||
| TimeSource& timeSource() override; | ||
| ProtobufMessage::ValidationVisitor& messageValidationVisitor() override; | ||
| ProtobufMessage::ValidationContext& messageValidationContext() override; | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why do we have both validation visitor and context as peers?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
removing of validator() will be in another PR, lots of files will be modified as I plan to pass the signal "added_via_api" (or a vlidator parameter) down from Listener to everythin.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Trying to figure out how this works.. do you have a draft PR to see the end results? As mentioned off-line, I'd like to:
^^ guided the existing design. We need a bunch of comments to explain this interim solution in any case, as it's pretty confusing why both are there right now.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. #9779 I have it now. |
||
| Api::Api& api() override; | ||
| ServerLifecycleNotifier& lifecycleNotifier() override; | ||
| OptProcessContextRef processContext() override; | ||
|
|
||
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 don't think this is right. You can have a static inline route in a dynamic
Listener, for example, and we should be applying dynamic validation logic.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.
revert it.
In the long run, I will probably make Listener validator passed down to RDS and its children object. (so that RDS doesn't depend on Listener).