TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node
20
1
Fork 27
Code Issues 101 Pull requests 5 Projects Releases 1 Activity Actions

control: Recieve target in gRPC methods for APE managing #842

Merged
fyrchik merged 2 commits from aarifullin/frostfs-node:feature/chain_control_api into master 2023-12-07 14:22:00 +00:00
Conversation 0 Commits 2 Files changed 14 +121 -31
aarifullin commented 2023-12-05 09:16:28 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  • Introduce Target type and pass it to all gRPC methods
    for APE chain managing instead CID
  • Update policy-engine package version in go.mod, go.sum.
  • Refactor CheckIfRequestPermitted: pass container target
    instead container ID.
* Introduce Target type and pass it to all gRPC methods for APE chain managing instead CID * Update policy-engine package version in go.mod, go.sum. * Refactor CheckIfRequestPermitted: pass container target instead container ID.
aarifullin added the
refactoring
 label 2023-12-05 09:16:28 +00:00
aarifullin force-pushed feature/chain_control_api from 1f2e3e067f to 9af58a9b31 2023-12-05 09:17:27 +00:00 Compare
aarifullin changed title from [#XX] control: Recieve target in gRPC methods for APE managing to control: Recieve target in gRPC methods for APE managing 2023-12-05 09:18:26 +00:00
aarifullin requested review from storage-core-committers 2023-12-05 10:31:50 +00:00
aarifullin requested review from storage-core-developers 2023-12-05 10:32:02 +00:00
acid-ant approved these changes 2023-12-05 10:33:45 +00:00
elebedeva approved these changes 2023-12-05 13:50:56 +00:00
dkirillov reviewed 2023-12-06 08:53:41 +00:00
pkg/services/control/server/policy_engine.go Outdated
@ -22,2 +42,2 @@
var cid cid.ID
err := cid.Decode(req.GetBody().GetContainerId())
target := req.GetBody().GetTarget()
if target.Type != control.ChainTarget_CONTAINER {
dkirillov commented 2023-12-06 08:53:41 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Why do we require exactly container target (what about namespace)?

Why do we require exactly container target (what about namespace)?
aarifullin commented 2023-12-06 10:49:56 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

As you can see here is deprecated prototype of APE used. This check will be fixe here but we need this PR #842 first.

Briefly: the current implementation works with containers only but this will become unactual in #820

As you can see here is deprecated prototype of APE used. This check will be fixe [here](https://git.frostfs.info/TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node/pulls/820) but we need this PR #842 first. Briefly: the current implementation works with containers only but this will become unactual in #820
aarifullin force-pushed feature/chain_control_api from 7ab1921c6a to f7575437f8 2023-12-06 12:29:39 +00:00 Compare
aarifullin requested review from acid-ant 2023-12-06 12:30:50 +00:00
aarifullin requested review from elebedeva 2023-12-06 12:30:50 +00:00
aarifullin requested review from storage-core-committers 2023-12-06 12:31:03 +00:00
aarifullin requested review from storage-core-developers 2023-12-06 12:31:04 +00:00
dkirillov approved these changes 2023-12-06 13:50:52 +00:00
acid-ant approved these changes 2023-12-07 06:45:29 +00:00
fyrchik reviewed 2023-12-07 07:26:03 +00:00
pkg/services/control/server/policy_engine.go Outdated
@ -15,2 +16,4 @@
)
// extractCID extracts CID from the schema's pattern.
// TODO (aarifullin): This is temporary solution should be replaced by
fyrchik commented 2023-12-07 07:24:40 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Do we have a task for this? Refs #847 @dstepanov-yadro

Do we have a task for this? Refs #847 @dstepanov-yadro
aarifullin commented 2023-12-07 08:28:56 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

I am going to erase this method and TODO here. So, as soon as this PR will be merged!

This method is needed because frostfs-node still uses deprecated APE version

I am going to erase this method and `TODO` [here](https://git.frostfs.info/TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node/pulls/820). So, as soon as this PR will be merged! This method is needed because frostfs-node still uses deprecated APE version
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
pkg/services/control/types.proto Outdated
@ -172,0 +175,4 @@
// are applied.
message ChainTarget {
enum TargetType {
NAMESPACE = 0;
fyrchik commented 2023-12-07 07:25:58 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Maybe use some undefined as default = 0? The parameter is mandatory

Maybe use some `undefined` as default `= 0`? The parameter is mandatory
aarifullin commented 2023-12-07 10:22:49 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Introduced Undefined number

Introduced `Undefined` number
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
aarifullin force-pushed feature/chain_control_api from f7575437f8 to ec747c217c 2023-12-07 10:18:22 +00:00 Compare
aarifullin requested review from acid-ant 2023-12-07 10:22:58 +00:00
aarifullin requested review from dkirillov 2023-12-07 10:22:58 +00:00
acid-ant approved these changes 2023-12-07 11:01:03 +00:00
fyrchik approved these changes 2023-12-07 11:08:39 +00:00
dkirillov approved these changes 2023-12-07 11:33:21 +00:00
elebedeva approved these changes 2023-12-07 13:09:52 +00:00
fyrchik merged commit e361e017f3 into master 2023-12-07 14:22:00 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
acid-ant
fyrchik
dkirillov
elebedeva
Labels
Clear labels   
P0

Highest

  
P1

High

  
P2

Medium

  
P3

Low

  
badger

Badger DB related issues

  
frostfs-adm

   
frostfs-cli

   
frostfs-ir

   
frostfs-lens

   
frostfs-node

   
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
triage
  
Infrastructure

Infrastructure, Automation, CI/CD or DevOps related stuff

  
blocked

The issue or PR is blocked by something

  
bug

Something is not working

  
config

Configuration format update or breaking change

  
discussion

Talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas

  
documentation

Documentation related

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature

  
go

Language features adoption

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
internal

   
invalid

Something is wrong

  
kludge

This is a kludge and we know it

  
observability

Related to metrics, tracing and logs

  
perfomance

Perfomance related

  
question

More information is needed

  
refactoring

Refactoring

  
wontfix

This won't be fixed

No labels
P0
P1
P2
P3
badger
frostfs-adm
frostfs-cli
frostfs-ir
frostfs-lens
frostfs-node
good first issue
triage
Infrastructure
blocked
bug
config
discussion
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
go
help wanted
internal
invalid
kludge
observability
perfomance
question
refactoring
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
5 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node#842
No description provided.
Delete branch "aarifullin/frostfs-node:feature/chain_control_api"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?