Fixes for hostname, port, and enum validation #83
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The previous PRs introduce unified validation for a couple of particularly challenging cases (IPv4/IPv6 addresses and URIs.) This PR is relatively light, since the existing validation functions in protovalidate-cc are already structured close to what they need to be. For enum validation, all that was wrong was the message. There are two more classes of conformance test failures: - Bugs in the CEL string.format helper. - A bug in v0.10.3 of the conformance test suite that set IGNORE_ALWAYS on some fields that shouldn't have it. They will be addressed in future PRs, which should allow us to empty out expected_failures.yaml again.
…nto jchadwick/host-port-enum-validation-fixes
Alfus
approved these changes
Apr 8, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The previous PRs introduce unified validation for a couple of particularly challenging cases (IPv4/IPv6 addresses and URIs.) This PR is relatively light, since the existing validation functions in protovalidate-cc are already structured close to what they need to be. These adjustments are just meant to mirror what we are already doing in other implementations now, nothing too sophisticated.
For enum validation, all that was wrong was the message.
The only remaining failure is differences with
strings.formatwhich needs further investigation.