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

feat: add scope name to proxy path to have unique address #590

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 5, 2024

Conversation

smuu
Copy link
Member

@smuu smuu commented Dec 5, 2024

Overview

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced host identification by updating the prefix format in the host addition process.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Maintained consistent error handling for instance state and proxy initialization during host addition.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request modify the AddHost method of the network struct in pkg/instance/proxy.go. The primary alteration is in the construction of the prefix variable, which now includes an additional component, n.instance.Scope, resulting in a new format of "%s-%s-%d". This update affects how hosts are identified within the proxy while maintaining existing error handling and method functionality.

Changes

File Change Summary
pkg/instance/proxy.go Modified the AddHost method to change the prefix format from "%s-%d" to "%s-%s-%d" including n.instance.Scope. Error handling remains unchanged.

Possibly related PRs

  • fix(proxy): specify scope/namespace for proxy #586: The changes in this PR involve specifying the scope/namespace for the proxy, which is related to the modifications in the AddHost method that also involve the n.instance.Scope, indicating a connection in how the proxy's identification and configuration are managed.

Suggested reviewers

  • MSevey
  • tty47
  • mojtaba-esk

🐰 In the meadow, where rabbits play,
A prefix changed in a clever way.
With scope now added, hosts align,
In the proxy's dance, all will be fine!
Hops of joy for code so bright,
A new format shines in the night! 🌙


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
pkg/instance/proxy.go (2)

30-30: LGTM, but needs input validation

The addition of scope to the prefix will help ensure unique addresses as intended. However, the scope value should be validated to prevent potential issues.

Consider adding validation before the prefix construction:

+       if n.instance.Scope == "" {
+           return "", ErrInvalidScope.WithParams("scope cannot be empty")
+       }
+       // Prevent special characters that could cause URL parsing issues
+       if strings.Contains(n.instance.Scope, "-") {
+           return "", ErrInvalidScope.WithParams("scope cannot contain hyphens")
+       }
        prefix := fmt.Sprintf("%s-%s-%d", n.instance.Scope, serviceName, port)

Line range hint 30-36: Consider adding logging for debugging

Given this is a significant change in proxy addressing, adding debug logging would help track any issues during rollout.

        prefix := fmt.Sprintf("%s-%s-%d", n.instance.Scope, serviceName, port)
+       log.Debugf("Generated proxy prefix %s for service %s (scope: %s, port: %d)",
+           prefix, serviceName, n.instance.Scope, port)
        if err := n.instance.Proxy.AddHost(ctx, serviceName, prefix, port); err != nil {
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ad86999 and f925100.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • pkg/instance/proxy.go (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
pkg/instance/proxy.go (1)

Line range hint 30-36: Verify impact on existing proxy paths

The change in prefix format could affect existing service discovery. We should verify how this change impacts running systems and whether a migration strategy is needed.

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more information about the proxy implementation and usage patterns.


Let me try one more search to find the proxy implementation and its usage patterns.


Change in prefix format is safe and backwards compatible

The verification shows that the proxy implementation (Traefik) handles prefixes independently for each service registration. The prefix is used only within the scope of a single AddHost call and doesn't affect existing services:

  • The prefix is generated uniquely for each service using instance scope, service name, and port
  • Traefik creates isolated resources (middleware, ingress routes) for each prefix
  • No shared state or dependencies between different service registrations were found
  • The prefix format change only affects new service registrations
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for existing proxy URL usages to assess impact
rg -l 'URL\(ctx,.*\)' | while read -r file; do
  echo "=== $file ==="
  rg -A 2 'URL\(ctx,.*\)' "$file"
done

# Look for any direct prefix construction patterns that might need updating
ast-grep --pattern 'fmt.Sprintf("%s-%d"'

Length of output: 1101


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for proxy-related implementations and usages
echo "=== Searching for Proxy interface and implementation ==="
ast-grep --pattern 'type Proxy interface'

echo -e "\n=== Looking for AddHost implementations ==="
ast-grep --pattern 'func $_($_ context.Context, $_ string, $_ string, $_ int)'

echo -e "\n=== Searching for prefix construction patterns ==="
rg -A 2 'Sprintf.*%s.*%s.*%d'

echo -e "\n=== Looking for proxy-related tests ==="
fd -e go -x rg -l 'Proxy' {} \; | while read -r file; do
    if [[ $file == *"_test.go" ]]; then
        echo "=== $file ==="
        rg -A 2 'AddHost|URL\(' "$file"
    fi
done

Length of output: 2879


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for proxy-related code
echo "=== Searching for proxy implementation files ==="
fd -e go -x rg -l 'type.*Proxy.*struct|type.*Proxy.*interface' {} \;

echo -e "\n=== Looking for proxy usage patterns ==="
rg -A 3 'instance\.Proxy\.' 

echo -e "\n=== Checking for existing prefix usage ==="
rg -A 3 'AddHost.*prefix'

echo -e "\n=== Looking for service discovery related code ==="
rg -A 3 'serviceName.*port'

Length of output: 2571

Copy link
Member

@mojtaba-esk mojtaba-esk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice!

@MSevey MSevey merged commit 32ef413 into main Dec 5, 2024
18 checks passed
@MSevey MSevey deleted the smuu/20241205-add-scope-to-proxy-address branch December 5, 2024 17:50
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.

3 participants