fix(ci): Partial rollback of #2793

[dmihalcik-virtru]

Proposed Changes

• This should fix some breaking builds

Checklist

• I have added or updated unit tests
• I have added or updated integration tests (if appropriate)
• I have added or updated documentation

Testing Instructions

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @dmihalcik-virtru, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request aims to stabilize the continuous integration process by reverting a specific change that was causing build failures. It modifies a protocol buffer definition to re-enable a previously reserved field, which is now marked as deprecated, thereby addressing the root cause of the CI issues and ensuring builds pass reliably.

Highlights

• CI Fix: This pull request partially rolls back changes introduced in fix(core): deprecated stale protos and add better upgrade comments #2793 to address issues causing breaking builds in the continuous integration pipeline.
• Protocol Buffer Definition Update: The with_value field (tag 2) in GetAttributeValuesByFqnsRequest within attributes.proto has been re-introduced and marked as deprecated, effectively undoing its previous reservation.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

---

Builds broke, CI cried, Rollback brings peace to the code, Green checks now return.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request partially rolls back a change from #2793 to fix breaking builds by reintroducing the with_value field in GetAttributeValuesByFqnsRequest. The change is reasonable, but it's missing the deprecated=true option on the field, which is a Protobuf best practice for deprecations as per the Google Protocol Buffers style guide. I've added a comment to address this.

[gemini-code-assist]

To properly mark this field as deprecated, you should use the deprecated option. This allows protobuf compilers and tools to issue warnings when the field is used. This follows the Google Protocol Buffers style guide for deprecating fields.

Suggested change

	policy.AttributeValueSelector with_value = 2;
	policy.AttributeValueSelector with_value = 2 [deprecated = true];

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	181.424345ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	100.140389ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	381.541819ms
Throughput	262.09 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	41.149142383s
Average Latency	410.268058ms
Throughput	121.51 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	27.059346093s
Average Latency	269.557366ms
Throughput	184.78 requests/second

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	185.392742ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	111.712139ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	379.145634ms
Throughput	263.75 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	44.448733985s
Average Latency	442.738656ms
Throughput	112.49 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	30.058514398s
Average Latency	298.998276ms
Throughput	166.34 requests/second