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 validation for reverse proxy configuration #277

Closed
kevinbader opened this issue Dec 13, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #286
Closed

Improve validation for reverse proxy configuration #277

kevinbader opened this issue Dec 13, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #286
Assignees
Labels
good first issue usability bug A message/warning/error does not describe the actual problem in a nice way
Milestone

Comments

@kevinbader
Copy link
Contributor

The reverse proxy configuration should be validated

  • when loading it from a configuration file / environment variable,
  • when using the API.

For example, when creating a route with target kinesis without a target topic, and the variable PROXY_KINESIS_REQUEST_STREAM is not set, loading the configuration should fail. Currently, the configuration will be applied but clients will see an error once they try to use the route.

If an error is encountered:

  • If the configuration passed on startup contains an error, RIG should refuse to start.
  • If the configuration passed to RIG's API contains as error, RIG should respond with an 400 Bad Request status code.
@kevinbader kevinbader added this to the 2.4.0 milestone Dec 13, 2019
@kevinbader kevinbader added good first issue usability bug A message/warning/error does not describe the actual problem in a nice way labels Jan 16, 2020
@mmacai mmacai self-assigned this Jan 24, 2020
@mmacai
Copy link
Collaborator

mmacai commented Jan 24, 2020

@kevinbader any opinion on something like this https://github.com/CargoSense/vex?

@kevinbader
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mmacai looks cool! I like that it makes it easy to retrieve a list of all errors that occurred during validation - something that's a bit cumbersome when done manually.

@kevinbader kevinbader modified the milestones: 2.4.0, 3.0.0 May 4, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue usability bug A message/warning/error does not describe the actual problem in a nice way
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants