Skip to content

Another gogo improvement: inline stringmap structs to avoid another u… #64

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 14, 2017
Merged

Conversation

geeknoid
Copy link
Contributor

…seless pointer.

@geeknoid geeknoid requested a review from douglas-reid March 12, 2017 15:15
@googlebot
Copy link
Collaborator

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for the commit author(s). If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google.

@googlebot
Copy link
Collaborator

CLAs look good, thanks!

@geeknoid geeknoid requested a review from ZackButcher March 14, 2017 21:29
@@ -39,4 +39,7 @@ message ReportResponse {

// Indicates whether the report was processed or not
google.rpc.Status result = 2 [(gogoproto.nullable) = false];

// The attributes to use for this response
Attributes attribute_update = 3;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you make this one consistent with the others? Either make the attributes field #2 in this message, or #3 in the others. IMO check/quota should be updated to match this one.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was my intent to make those all the same, but I guess my mind strayed somewhere along the way.

PTAL.

@geeknoid geeknoid merged commit 2cb0982 into istio:master Mar 14, 2017
// Indicates whether or not the preconditions succeeded
google.rpc.Status result = 2 [(gogoproto.nullable) = false];
google.rpc.Status result = 3 [(gogoproto.nullable) = false];

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"2" used to be "result", now it is used for attribute_update. This is bad. It breaks the backward compatibility. You never re-use a proto index.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry, given the phase the project is in I didn't think backward compat was an issue yet.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We did this (and in general have been changing field indices) because these protos aren't being persisted anywhere today - the field number change should have no effect on anyone. We're still pre-Alpha so all bets are off w.r.t. backwards compatibility. Post official Alpha release I totally agree this kind of shuffling of fields must never happen.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is between proxy and mixer. Without this change, we can safely say all proxy versions works with all mixer versions. Now with this change, we could not say that any more.
The demo users have to be careful which version of proxy and mixer can work together. They are not always using the latest.

incfly pushed a commit to incfly/api that referenced this pull request Jun 13, 2018
nacx pushed a commit to nacx/api that referenced this pull request Feb 23, 2022
This patch imports istio.io API protos (hence the new additional `-I` to include `-Icommon-protos/istio.io/api`).

So, e.g. in `install/controlplane/v1alpha1/spec.proto`,

```proto
import "istio.io/api/operator/v1alpha1/component.proto";

message ControlPlaneSpec {
  ...
  repeated istio.operator.v1alpha1.K8sObjectOverlay overlays = 700;
}

```

Signed-off-by: Dhi Aurrahman <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants