Feature/meta/save metadata #2624
Conversation
WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces a new metadata management feature to the API, encompassing the addition of a Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
kpango
force-pushed
the
feature/meta/save-metadata
branch
from
13916e8 to
f2e604f
Compare
Deploying vald with
|
| Latest commit: |
b7d005a
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://3fdfe8d3.vald.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://feature-meta-save-metadata.vald.pages.dev |
github-actions
bot
added
area/manager/index
area/filter/ingress
area/filter/egress
area/agent/sidecar
area/gateway/lb
area/gateway/filter
area/gateway/mirror
area/index/job/correction
area/index/job/creation
area/index/job/save
area/index/job/readreplica
size/XL
type/feature
smorihira
force-pushed
the
feature/meta/save-metadata
branch
from
f2e604f to
f43c33a
Compare
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
rust/libs/proto/src/payload.v1.rs (1)
1241-1244: LGTM, but consider adding a doc comment to clarify the purpose.The empty
Metastruct has been introduced correctly. However, its purpose is unclear. Consider adding a documentation comment to explain its intended usage, even if it's a placeholder for now.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (8)
apis/grpc/v1/agent/sidecar/sidecar_vtproto.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.go,!**/*.pb.goapis/grpc/v1/meta/meta.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.go,!**/*.pb.goapis/grpc/v1/meta/meta_vtproto.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.go,!**/*.pb.goapis/grpc/v1/payload/payload.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.go,!**/*.pb.goapis/grpc/v1/payload/payload.pb.json.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.json.goapis/grpc/v1/payload/payload_vtproto.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.go,!**/*.pb.goapis/grpc/v1/rpc/errdetails/error_details.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.go,!**/*.pb.gorust/Cargo.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
Files selected for processing (13)
- apis/docs/v1/docs.md (4 hunks)
- apis/proto/v1/meta/meta.proto (1 hunks)
- apis/proto/v1/payload/payload.proto (2 hunks)
- apis/swagger/v1/meta/meta.swagger.json (1 hunks)
- rust/Cargo.toml (1 hunks)
- rust/bin/meta/Cargo.toml (1 hunks)
- rust/bin/meta/src/handler.rs (1 hunks)
- rust/bin/meta/src/handler/meta.rs (1 hunks)
- rust/bin/meta/src/main.rs (1 hunks)
- rust/libs/proto/Cargo.toml (1 hunks)
- rust/libs/proto/src/lib.rs (1 hunks)
- rust/libs/proto/src/meta.v1.tonic.rs (1 hunks)
- rust/libs/proto/src/payload.v1.rs (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- rust/bin/meta/src/handler.rs
Additional context used
buf
apis/proto/v1/meta/meta.proto
21-21: import "google/api/annotations.proto": file does not exist
(COMPILE)
checkov
apis/swagger/v1/meta/meta.swagger.json
[HIGH] 1-167: Ensure that security requirement defined in securityDefinitions - version 2.0 files
(CKV_OPENAPI_6)
[HIGH] 1-167: Ensure that the global security field has rules defined
(CKV_OPENAPI_4)
[HIGH] 1-167: Ensure that security operations is not empty.
(CKV_OPENAPI_5)
[HIGH] 1-167: Ensure that securityDefinitions is defined and not empty - version 2.0 files
(CKV_OPENAPI_1)
Markdownlint
apis/docs/v1/docs.md
688-688: null
Link fragments should be valid(MD051, link-fragments)
Additional comments not posted (26)
rust/Cargo.toml (1)
20-20: LGTM!The addition of the
"bin/meta"member to the[workspace]section is correct and consistent with the PR objective of introducing metadata functionality.rust/libs/proto/Cargo.toml (1)
26-26: LGTM!The addition of the
prost-typesdependency with version0.13.2is consistent with the existingprostandtonicdependencies. It aligns with the purpose of enhancing protocol buffer functionality in the project.rust/bin/meta/Cargo.toml (3)
1-15: License header looks good.The file includes the standard Apache License 2.0 header with the appropriate copyright notice. The formatting and content of the license header are correct.
16-19: Package configuration is appropriate.The package configuration specifies the correct name, version, and edition for the
metabinary target. The package name aligns with the purpose of the binary, the version indicates an initial release, and the edition is set to the latest stable version of Rust.
21-24: Dependencies are properly specified.The dependencies required by the
metabinary target are appropriately listed:
- The
protodependency is sourced from a local path, suggesting a custom library within the project.- The
tokiodependency is included with the "full" feature set, enabling asynchronous runtime capabilities.- The
tonicdependency is specified with a specific version, ensuring compatibility with the gRPC framework.The dependencies are relevant and necessary for the functionality of the
metabinary target.rust/libs/proto/src/lib.rs (1)
40-44: LGTM!The addition of the
metamodule and its submodulev1follows the existing pattern in the library and is consistent with the library's structure and naming conventions. The inclusion of themeta.v1.tonic.rsfile suggests that themetamodule will contain metadata-related functionality, likely generated using the Tonic framework for gRPC.The changes enhance the library's structure by organizing related functionalities under the new
metanamespace, which may facilitate better code management and modularization.rust/bin/meta/src/main.rs (1)
1-30: LGTM!The code in
main.rslooks good overall:
- It follows Rust conventions and best practices.
- It uses
tokiofor async execution and returns aResultfrommainfor error handling.- It sets up a gRPC server using
tonic, which is a good choice.- It creates an instance of the
Metahandler using itsdefaultmethod, registers it as a service, and starts the server correctly.No issues found. Good job!
rust/bin/meta/src/handler/meta.rs (3)
21-26: LGTM! Remember to implement the method.The method signature is correct and matches the gRPC service definition. Please remember to implement the method before merging this PR.
27-32: LGTM! Remember to implement the method.The method signature is correct and matches the gRPC service definition. Please remember to implement the method before merging this PR.
34-39: LGTM! Remember to implement the method.The method signature is correct and matches the gRPC service definition. Please remember to implement the method before merging this PR.
apis/proto/v1/meta/meta.proto (2)
30-45: LGTM!The
Metaservice and its methods (Get,Set, andDelete) are correctly defined using the Protocol Buffers syntax. The service definition follows the standard conventions and includes the appropriate HTTP annotations for each method.
22-22: Verify the relative import path forv1/payload/payload.proto.The import statement assumes a relative path for
v1/payload/payload.proto. Please ensure that this file exists at the specified location relative to the current file.Run the following script to verify the import path:
Verification successful
Import path is correct. The file
apis/proto/v1/payload/payload.protoexists at the specified location, confirming that the import path inapis/proto/v1/meta/meta.protois correct.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence of the imported file. # Test: Check if the file exists relative to the current file. if [ -f "apis/proto/v1/payload/payload.proto" ]; then echo "Import path is correct. File exists at apis/proto/v1/payload/payload.proto" else echo "Import path is incorrect. File does not exist at apis/proto/v1/payload/payload.proto" fiLength of output: 207
apis/swagger/v1/meta/meta.swagger.json (3)
1-13: LGTM!The API info and tags are properly defined.
Tools
checkov
[HIGH] 1-167: Ensure that security requirement defined in securityDefinitions - version 2.0 files
(CKV_OPENAPI_6)
[HIGH] 1-167: Ensure that the global security field has rules defined
(CKV_OPENAPI_4)
[HIGH] 1-167: Ensure that security operations is not empty.
(CKV_OPENAPI_5)
[HIGH] 1-167: Ensure that securityDefinitions is defined and not empty - version 2.0 files
(CKV_OPENAPI_1)
14-99: LGTM!The API paths and operations are well-structured and consistent. The request/response schemas are properly referenced.
100-165: LGTM!The API models are accurately defined with proper types, references and detailed descriptions.
rust/libs/proto/src/meta.v1.tonic.rs (3)
16-171: LGTM!The
meta_clientmodule provides a well-structured and idiomatic Rust implementation of a gRPC client for theMetaservice. The code follows best practices and effectively utilizes thetoniclibrary for gRPC functionality.
173-456: LGTM!The
meta_servermodule provides a well-structured and idiomatic Rust implementation of a gRPC server for theMetaservice. The code follows best practices, such as defining a trait for the server methods, implementing necessary traits from thetoniclibrary, and handling incoming requests effectively usingasync/await.
1-456: Excellent work!The
rust/libs/proto/src/meta.v1.tonic.rsfile provides a well-structured, idiomatic, and efficient implementation of a gRPC client and server for theMetaservice using thetoniclibrary. The code follows Rust best practices and effectively utilizesasync/awaitfor asynchronous programming. Great job!apis/proto/v1/payload/payload.proto (1)
780-793: LGTM! The newMetamessage structure enhances flexibility and extensibility.The introduction of the
Metamessage structure, along with its nestedKey,Value, andKeyValuemessages, provides a powerful mechanism for storing and associating diverse data types with specific keys. This addition expands the capabilities of the payload without affecting existing functionality.Key highlights:
- The
Keymessage allows for clear identification of each metadata entry.- The
Valuemessage, utilizing thegoogle.protobuf.Anytype, enables the storage of any arbitrary message type, promoting extensibility.- The
KeyValuemessage establishes a strong relationship between a key and its corresponding value, ensuring clarity and ease of use.These enhancements offer great flexibility and adaptability for future metadata requirements.
rust/libs/proto/src/payload.v1.rs (3)
1247-1252: Looks good!The
Keystruct with thekeyfield of typeStringhas been defined correctly.
1253-1258: Looks good!The
Valuestruct with the optionalvaluefield of typeAnyhas been defined correctly. UsingAnyallows flexibility in the types of values that can be stored.
1259-1266: Looks good!The
KeyValuestruct correctly composes theKeyandValuestructs to represent a key-value pair. Making both fields optional allows for flexibility in usage.apis/docs/v1/docs.md (4)
53-56: LGTM!The addition of the
Metaentry to the table of contents is consistent with the introduction of the newMetasection in the documentation.
661-689: Documentation for the newMetamessage type looks good!The
Metamessage type and its fields (Meta.Key,Meta.KeyValue, andMeta.Value) are clearly documented, following the existing documentation structure.Note that the
Meta.Valuefield uses thegoogle.protobuf.Anytype, which allows for storing arbitrary message types. While this provides flexibility, it may require additional handling in the code to pack and unpack the stored value.Tools
Markdownlint
688-688: null
Link fragments should be valid(MD051, link-fragments)
1346-1361: LGTM!The documentation for the new
Metaservice and its methods (Get,Set, andDelete) is clear, concise, and consistent with the existing documentation structure.
688-688: The static analysis hint about the link fragment is a false positive and can be safely ignored, as the link fragment is valid and points to the correct location in the documentation.Tools
Markdownlint
688-688: null
Link fragments should be valid(MD051, link-fragments)
Description
Related Issue
Versions
Checklist
Special notes for your reviewer
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Get,Set, andDeletemethods for handling key-value pairs.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores