fix: resolve issue where explicit routing metadata was not sent in async clients #2133
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
product-auto-label
bot
added
size: m
parthea
force-pushed
the
refactor-routing-parameters-test
branch
from
f3e66ba to
b9d0532
Compare
parthea
changed the title
parthea
changed the title
parthea
force-pushed
the
refactor-routing-parameters-test
branch
from
b9d0532 to
068dfe9
Compare
product-auto-label
bot
added
size: xl
parthea
force-pushed
the
refactor-routing-parameters-test
branch
from
068dfe9 to
fd74cbc
Compare
Co-authored-by: Victor Chudnovsky <[email protected]>
product-auto-label
bot
added
size: l
product-auto-label
bot
added
size: xl
vchudnov-g
reviewed
Sep 16, 2024
Contributor
vchudnov-g
left a comment
vchudnov-g
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's looking good, but I want to have look after this is rebased on HEAD.
| metadata = tuple(metadata) + ( | ||
| gapic_v1.routing_header.to_grpc_metadata(( | ||
| {% for field_header in method.field_headers %} | ||
| {% if not method.client_streaming %} |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: I know this PR just moved the pre-existing code into this macro, but we could move the {% if %} outside the {% for %} since method is not altered by the loop.
vchudnov-g
reviewed
Sep 16, 2024
| # Establish that the underlying gRPC stub method was called. | ||
| call.assert_called() | ||
| _, args, _ = call.mock_calls[0] | ||
| _, args, kw = call.mock_calls[0] |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: the kw should be wrapped in {% if routing_param %} because otherwise it won't be used in the generated code. This could lead to linter warnings, right?
gapic/templates/tests/unit/gapic/%name_%version/%sub/test_macros.j2
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
|
||
| {% if routing_param %} | ||
| expected_headers = {{ method.routing_rule.resolve(method.routing_rule, routing_param.sample_request) }} | ||
| assert gapic_v1.routing_header.to_grpc_metadata(expected_headers) in kw['metadata'] |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this code path tested? I don't find it in any of the goldens.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, you can add an assert False when running the showcase unit tests and tests will fail. I attempted to add golden files for showcase in #1991 but ran into the issue in #1993
To test locally make the following change and run nox -s showcase_unit-3.9
(py392) partheniou@partheniou-vm-3:~/git/gapic-generator-python$ git diff
diff --git a/gapic/templates/tests/unit/gapic/%name_%version/%sub/test_macros.j2 b/gapic/templates/tests/unit/gapic/%name_%version/%sub/test_macros.j2
index f3c20ea5..e9cb6c0c 100644
--- a/gapic/templates/tests/unit/gapic/%name_%version/%sub/test_macros.j2
+++ b/gapic/templates/tests/unit/gapic/%name_%version/%sub/test_macros.j2
@@ -1843,6 +1843,7 @@ def test_{{ method_name }}_rest_no_http_options():
{% if routing_param %}
expected_headers = {{ method.routing_rule.resolve(method.routing_rule, routing_param.sample_request) }}
assert gapic_v1.routing_header.to_grpc_metadata(expected_headers) in kw['metadata']
+ assert False
{% endif %}
{% endwith %}{# method_name #}
{% endmacro %}
(py392) partheniou@partheniou-vm-3:~/git/gapic-generator-python$ nox -s showcase_unit-3.9
nox > Running session showcase_unit-3.9
nox > Creating virtual environment (virtualenv) using python3.9 in .nox/showcase_unit-3-9
...
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_7_grpc - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_2_grpc_asyncio - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_1_grpc - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_8_grpc - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_3_grpc_asyncio - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_2_grpc - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_4_grpc_asyncio - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_3_grpc - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_1_grpc_asyncio - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_5_grpc_asyncio - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_4_grpc - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_6_grpc_asyncio - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_5_grpc - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_7_grpc_asyncio - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_6_grpc - assert False
FAILED tests/unit/gapic/showcase_v1beta1/test_echo.py::test_echo_routing_parameters_request_8_grpc_asyncio - assert False
16 failed, 1134 passed, 10 skipped, 58 warnings in 17.76s
| {% endmacro %} | ||
|
|
||
| {% macro create_metadata(method) %} | ||
| {% if method.explicit_routing %} |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To resolve #2078, we'll probably need to add an extra check here for passed-in routing metadata:
metadata = tuple(metadata)
# add routing headers if not passed in metadata
if not any (m[0] == gapic_v1.routing_header.ROUTING_METADATA_KEY for m in metadata):
{% if method.explicit_routing %}
...
I have #2079 open to try to address this, and I plan to fix it up to match this new structure after this PR is merged. But I'm mentioning it now in case you think it makes more sense to just address these together here
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For #2078 we need to update AIPs first so there is consistent behavior across all language-specific generators: https://google.aip.dev/client-libraries/4222
I'm going to go ahead without #2078 as there is still work pending
Co-authored-by: Victor Chudnovsky <[email protected]>
vchudnov-g
approved these changes
Sep 18, 2024
This was referenced Oct 31, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
This PR depends on #2126 and #2131. Please review those PRs first.
See https://google.aip.dev/client-libraries/4222
test_*_routing_parametersso that it can be used for both sync and async test casesFixes #2091