xdsrouting: resolver to generate service config with routes, and pick routing balancer #3751
Conversation
menghanl
commented
Jul 20, 2020
•
menghanl
commented
menghanl
changed the title
…s, and pick routing as the top level balancer
menghanl
force-pushed
the
xds_routing_resolver
branch
from
b73ce8b
to
252727d
Compare
|
This PR is rebased on top of the balancer, and tests are passing. Should be ready for review. Thanks! |
menghanl
force-pushed
the
xds_routing_resolver
branch
from
252727d
to
044dbc8
Compare
| oldNextIndex map[string]int | ||
| newActions map[string]action | ||
| wantActions map[string]action | ||
| wantNextIndex map[string]int |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Testing the value of wantNextIndex seems to be testing implementation rather than behavior. And if we go with my other suggestion of using random numbers for the next index, we wouldn't have to test that at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It to make sure that the indices are incrementing, so it won't generate the same assigned names.
Random number would make this, and the expected assigned names hard to test.
|
|
||
| // Find actions in newActions but not in oldActions. Add them, and try to | ||
| // reuse assigned names from actionsRemoved. | ||
| if r.nextIndex == nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not too worried about overflow, and I made it a uint64 now.
Random number would work, but it makes the tests harder.
| oldNextIndex map[string]int | ||
| newActions map[string]action | ||
| wantActions map[string]action | ||
| wantNextIndex map[string]int |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It to make sure that the indices are incrementing, so it won't generate the same assigned names.
Random number would make this, and the expected assigned names hard to test.
|
I sent a comment about trying to override the random generator with a monotonic generator in tests. But not sure why it doesn't show up here. :( |
