-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
Adds Grpc.newManagedChannel(String, ChannelCredentials, NameResolverR… #11901
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
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 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -28,7 +28,9 @@ | |||
| import io.grpc.ManagedChannelProvider; | ||||
| import io.grpc.ManagedChannelProvider.NewChannelBuilderResult; | ||||
| import io.grpc.ManagedChannelRegistryAccessor; | ||||
| import io.grpc.NameResolverRegistry; | ||||
| import io.grpc.TlsChannelCredentials; | ||||
| import io.grpc.internal.testing.FakeNameResolverProvider; | ||||
| import io.grpc.stub.StreamObserver; | ||||
| import io.grpc.testing.GrpcCleanupRule; | ||||
| import io.grpc.testing.protobuf.SimpleRequest; | ||||
|
|
@@ -120,6 +122,24 @@ public void managedChannelRegistry_newChannelBuilder() { | |||
| channel.shutdownNow(); | ||||
| } | ||||
|
|
||||
| @Test | ||||
| public void managedChannelRegistry_newChannelBuilderForNameResolverRegistry() { | ||||
| Assume.assumeTrue(Utils.isEpollAvailable()); | ||||
| NameResolverRegistry nameResolverRegistry = new NameResolverRegistry(); | ||||
| DomainSocketAddress socketAddress = new DomainSocketAddress("test-server"); | ||||
| FakeNameResolverProvider fakeNameResolverProvider = new FakeNameResolverProvider( | ||||
| "unix:///sock.sock", socketAddress); | ||||
| nameResolverRegistry.register(fakeNameResolverProvider); | ||||
| ManagedChannelBuilder<?> managedChannelBuilder | ||||
| = Grpc.newChannelBuilder("unix:///sock.sock", | ||||
| InsecureChannelCredentials.create(), nameResolverRegistry); | ||||
| assertThat(managedChannelBuilder).isNotNull(); | ||||
| ManagedChannel channel = managedChannelBuilder.build(); | ||||
| assertThat(channel).isNotNull(); | ||||
| assertThat(channel.authority()).isEqualTo("/sock.sock"); | ||||
|
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. The test isn't actually working. FakeNameResolverProvider hard-codes the authority to "fake-authority". So this should be failing, because it isn't actually using your NameResolverRegistry. And that's because the name resolver registry isn't being passed to the ManagedChannelBuilder.
And looking deeper, that's because the NameResolverRegistry code in ManagedChannelRegistry is a bit of a hack; it doesn't coordinate with the ManagedChannelBuilder right now and instead just assumes some later logic in ManagedChannelImpl will produce similar results. It should ideally select the NameResolverProvider and pass it to the ManagedChannelProvider. But I'm not sure how much of that we want to clean up now.
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. I think we will need to change the arguments of But I need to think more about what the new signature should look like. There's some interplay between ManagedChannelRegistry and
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. I spoke with Doug, and I think the new signature should have NameResolverProvider (for this channel's use) and NameResolverRegistry (for child channel's use) added as arguments. To help the migration, you can have the new method call the old method (and just throw away the new arguments).
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. Do you mean something like #11978 for migration ?
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. The extra method needs to be on
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. Updated.
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. The update looks good. Why is that a separate PR? What progression of changes are you imagining for this?
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. I initially thought that after merging the other PR we could do the migration, because initially i had made changes to expose a new API but after the update that becomes pointless because even if we had merged it, it wouldn't be useful directly.
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. It must be used in this PR. This method would call the new |
||||
| channel.shutdownNow(); | ||||
| } | ||||
|
|
||||
| @Test | ||||
| public void udsClientServerTestUsingProvider() throws IOException { | ||||
| Assume.assumeTrue(Utils.isEpollAvailable()); | ||||
|
|
||||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.