Return support for an scheme omitted IP address in RPC_HOST #199
Conversation
This file contains 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
For example, `127.0.0.1:50051/anycable`. It's missing from 1.4.6 which introduced auto RPC implementation inferring from the RPC host.
ardecvz
force-pushed
the
feature/support-rpc-host-with-port
branch
from
c87d246
to
cbaef0f
Compare
|
Thanks! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What is the purpose of this pull request?
Return support for an scheme omitted IP address in RPC_HOST
For example,
127.0.0.1:50051/anycable.It's missing from 1.4.6 which introduced auto RPC implementation
inferring from the RPC host.
What changes did you make? (overview)
Default to grpc:// scheme if omitted + test all known RPC_HOST variants + include invalid RPC_HOST to logs for better debugging:
!!! RPC failed !!!, cause: unknown RPC implementation: <invalid RPC host: invalid://:+>Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Checklist