Skip to content

Use getField CEL function #352

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 22, 2025
Merged

Use getField CEL function #352

merged 4 commits into from
Apr 22, 2025

Conversation

jchadwick-buf
Copy link
Member

@jchadwick-buf jchadwick-buf commented Apr 22, 2025

This is a proposal to remove our hack around the fact the in identifier is reserved in CEL. This is especially urgent for protovalidate-cc which is currently carrying patches to the CEL implementation in order to enable it, since cel-cpp doesn't allow this sort of functionality to be added in at runtime.

Runtime PRs:

This is a proposal to remove our hack around the fact the `in` identifier is reserved in CEL. This is especially urgent for protovalidate-cc which is currently carrying patches to the CEL implementation in order to enable it, since cel-cpp doesn't allow this sort of functionality to be added in at runtime.
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Apr 22, 2025

The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow Buf CI / buf (pull_request).

BuildFormatLintBreakingUpdated (UTC)
✅ passed✅ passed✅ passed✅ passedApr 22, 2025, 6:06 PM

jchadwick-buf added a commit to bufbuild/protovalidate-cc that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2025
I'm proposing this as an eventual replacement (before 1.0) of our hack around the fact that the in identifier is reserved in CEL. We need this for protovalidate-cc especially so we can start removing our cel-cpp patches.

Protovalidate PR: bufbuild/protovalidate#352
jchadwick-buf added a commit to bufbuild/protovalidate-cc that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2025
I'm proposing this as an eventual replacement (before 1.0) of our hack around the fact that the in identifier is reserved in CEL. We need this for protovalidate-cc especially so we can start removing our cel-cpp patches.

Protovalidate PR: bufbuild/protovalidate#352
jchadwick-buf added a commit to bufbuild/protovalidate-java that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2025
I'm proposing this as an eventual replacement (before 1.0) of our hack around the fact that the `in` identifier is reserved in CEL. We need this for protovalidate-cc especially so we can start removing our cel-cpp patches.

Protovalidate PR: bufbuild/protovalidate#352
@jchadwick-buf jchadwick-buf marked this pull request as ready for review April 22, 2025 06:58
@jchadwick-buf jchadwick-buf requested a review from rodaine April 22, 2025 15:20
@rodaine
Copy link
Member

rodaine commented Apr 22, 2025

LGTM! Do we want to also use this with const?

@jchadwick-buf
Copy link
Member Author

I added it for const as well.

@jchadwick-buf jchadwick-buf merged commit 68baacf into main Apr 22, 2025
7 checks passed
@jchadwick-buf jchadwick-buf deleted the jchadwick/getfield branch April 22, 2025 23:33
jchadwick-buf added a commit to bufbuild/protovalidate-java that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2025
I'm proposing this as an eventual replacement (before 1.0) of our hack
around the fact that the `in` identifier is reserved in CEL. We need
this for protovalidate-cc especially so we can start removing our
cel-cpp patches.

Protovalidate PR: bufbuild/protovalidate#352
jchadwick-buf added a commit to bufbuild/protovalidate-go that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2025
I think it has to be a global overload, a member overload would require
a generic on the receiver which doesn't seem possible.

I'm proposing this as an eventual replacement (before 1.0) of our hack
around the fact that the `in` identifier is reserved in CEL. This is
especially urgent for protovalidate-cc which is currently carrying
patches to the CEL implementation in order to enable it, since cel-cpp
doesn't allow this sort of functionality to be added in at runtime.

Protovalidate PR: bufbuild/protovalidate#352
jchadwick-buf added a commit to bufbuild/protovalidate-cc that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2025
I'm proposing this as an eventual replacement (before 1.0) of our hack
around the fact that the in identifier is reserved in CEL. We need this
for protovalidate-cc especially so we can start removing our cel-cpp
patches.

Protovalidate PR: bufbuild/protovalidate#352
jchadwick-buf added a commit to bufbuild/protovalidate-python that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2025
I'm proposing this as an eventual replacement (before 1.0) of our hack
around the fact that the `in` identifier is reserved in CEL. This is
especially urgent for protovalidate-cc which is currently carrying
patches to the CEL implementation in order to enable it, since cel-cpp
doesn't allow this sort of functionality to be added in at runtime.

Protovalidate PR: bufbuild/protovalidate#352
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants