Skip to content
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

GH-20981: [Flight][Integration] Generic gRPC Test Runner and Server #44115

Draft
wants to merge 20 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

joellubi
Copy link
Member

@joellubi joellubi commented Sep 13, 2024

Rationale for this change

What changes are included in this PR?

Are these changes tested?

Are there any user-facing changes?

Copy link

⚠️ GitHub issue #20981 has been automatically assigned in GitHub to PR creator.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review label Sep 13, 2024
@joellubi joellubi changed the title GH-20981: [Flight][Integration] Generic gRPC Flight Integration Server and Runner GH-20981: [Flight][Integration] Generic gRPC Server and Runner Sep 13, 2024
@joellubi joellubi changed the title GH-20981: [Flight][Integration] Generic gRPC Server and Runner GH-20981: [Flight][Integration] Generic gRPC Test Runner and Server Sep 13, 2024
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that's a valid filename? xD

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah I originally had this as auth_basic_proto.go just in case. Then I decided to take a look into the naming rules and was surprised to learn that Go only has requirements for the first character of a filename (source).

Name: "auth:basic_proto",
Steps: []scenario.ScenarioStep{
{
Name: "unauthenticated_action",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ah, I like this idea of separating out the subcases

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I thought we included the stubs in arrow-go?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We do, and I was originally using them first started prototyping. As a matter of principle though, I think that this module should avoid relying on any existing arrow implementations (arrow-go in this case) as it could introduce circular logic in tests and make that particular implementation authoritative instead of this suite.

If we only use the generated stubs from arrow-go, that's fine but from go.mod's perspective the entirety of arrow-go is still a dependency. It ends up being the developer's responsibility to not accidentally use non-generated code. By rebuilding the stubs for this module, the arrow-go dependency is removed entirely making the constraint explicit.

@github-actions github-actions bot added awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review labels Sep 14, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added awaiting change review Awaiting change review and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes labels Sep 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants