chore: use protovalidate interceptor instead of protoc-gen-validate interceptor#2863
chore: use protovalidate interceptor instead of protoc-gen-validate interceptor#2863tstirrat15 merged 1 commit intomainfrom
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (32.92%) is below the target coverage (75.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2863 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 74.51% 32.92% -41.59%
===========================================
Files 489 423 -66
Lines 60361 54306 -6055
===========================================
- Hits 44973 17875 -27098
- Misses 12235 34598 +22363
+ Partials 3153 1833 -1320 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
e0dba55 to
3f09a6e
Compare
3f09a6e to
3c6ea4b
Compare
1106050 to
06b999e
Compare
2df9a6c to
155af98
Compare
| WithServiceSpecificInterceptors: shared.WithServiceSpecificInterceptors{ | ||
| Unary: middleware.ChainUnaryServer( | ||
| grpcvalidate.UnaryServerInterceptor(), | ||
| grpcvalidate.UnaryServerInterceptor(validator), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please run a couple of manual tests to ensure that the validation still works as expected (docker-compose up --build for example). Try both HTTP and gRPC endpoints
i'm also wary of the handwrittenvalidation below. i don't know what it does but i'd want to make sure we didn't accidentally break it
155af98 to
14881db
Compare
14881db to
5cffb98
Compare
Description
Development on
protoc-gen-validatehas basically stopped in favor of protovalidate. It's intended to be a more consistent and flexible validation framework.This does mean that it will be slightly slower, but not slower enough to be meaningful: https://bufbuild.slack.com/archives/CRZ680FUH/p1760037391133719?thread_ts=1759933966.935909&cid=CRZ680FUH
Changes
Testing
Review. See that validation still happens as expected.