Skip to content
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

Improve required standard constraint docs + conformance tests #124

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 2, 2023

Conversation

rodaine
Copy link
Member

@rodaine rodaine commented Nov 1, 2023

This patch improves behavioral documentation of the OneOfConstraints.required, FieldConstraints.required, and FieldConstraints.ignore_empty standard constraints. The conformance tests have also been expanded to check the behavior for required (with ignore_empty to follow in a follow up).

Local conformance testing has verified that the current protovalidate-go behavior matches the expectations of these constraints.

Partially addresses: #115

Copy link
Member

@jhump jhump left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Much clearer. Thank you!

oneof o {
option (buf.validate.oneof).required = true;

string a = 1 [(buf.validate.field).required = true];
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Aside: this seems like a thing to lint for, no? This effectively makes it impossible to ever use field b and the message be valid, right?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yep, I only included it to be exhaustive! I believe @oliversun9 is covering that in the linting work.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yep, this is covered in bufbuild/buf#2528

Comment on lines +78 to +79
gte: 128,
lte: 256,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

FWIW, it was legal the other way, too. Alfred was explaining this to me the other day, that when the low and high are flipped, it effectively enforces that the value is not in the range in between (i.e. "gte" and "lte" end up combined with OR instead of AND).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's correct, however in context of testing the ignore_empty constraint, having it the other way around made the ignore_empty uninteresting (0 would always be valid in the constraints)

}

message RequiredProto2ScalarRequired {
required string val = 1 [(buf.validate.field).required = true];
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Intentional to use required label on this one? With this here, you can't even deserialize the message if the field absent (so we'd never even get to the validate call).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Correct, this is mainly to be exhaustive. At least in protobuf-go, you can set the (un)marshaler options to allow partials and let unset required fields to pass through.

@rodaine rodaine merged commit fa528d8 into main Nov 2, 2023
3 checks passed
@rodaine rodaine deleted the rodaine/required-clarification branch November 2, 2023 17:51
rodaine added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2023
Following #124, this adds conformance tests that ensure the
`ignore_empty` rules is consistent with `required`. Mainly, if a field
cannot differentiate between unset and the zero value (i.e., is not
nullable), then this rule applies; effectively this is just repeated and
map fields, as well as non-optional proto3 scalar outside of a oneof.

Running against `protovalidate-go`, a few places where `ignore_empty`
should be a noop ends up disabling evaluations. This will be a minor
follow-up fix in that library. Patches for the other libraries will
follow to bring them into conformance with these tests and those in
#124.
rodaine added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 4, 2023
With #124 et al, `ignore_empty` semantics have been made consistent with
`required`, but it's still limiting (and confusing) in situations where
skipping validation rules is still desired when a field is either
unpopulated _or_ set to the default value (for instance, within an
update request that allows conditionally updating a field on a resource
that is itself a nullable field).

This patch deprecates `ignore_empty`, expanding into `ignore` which is
now an enum that supports the original semantics, as well as this
expanded~looser definition. `ignore_empty` will be removed from the
proto with a v1 release.

Conformance + examples will be added after this is released (due to the
two-phased managed module)

---------

Co-authored-by: Edward McFarlane <[email protected]>
jchadwick-buf pushed a commit to jchadwick-buf/protovalidate that referenced this pull request Jul 15, 2024
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.

None yet

4 participants