+1 Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 > >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:58 Jan van Doorn <j...@knutsel.com> wrote: >> >> +1 on using libs. >> >>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> +1 -- agree with Jeff -- the validation of the fields of >>> deliveryservice is something that is incomplete in the Perl >>> traffic_ops. >>> >>> These libraries make for concise code to do the validation so it will >>> be easier to extend without much extra code. It will not be called >>> on every API function, but only once on each POST/PUT which are a >>> small minority of calls. It also need not be used in every case. >>> That, to me, makes the reflection argument much less of a concern. >>> >>> I would like to see it go in sooner than Friday, but won't argue that >> point.. >>> >>> -dan >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:10 AM, Dewayne Richardson <dewr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> So, it's been a few days on this topic and I'd like to call a vote for >> the >>>> dependencies listed in this thread. Please vote +1 or -1 by Noon >> Friday so >>>> that we can move forward the Golang Proxy development. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -Dew >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Jeff Elsloo <els...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't think we should assume anything about the performance just >>>>> because it uses reflection. Yes, traditionally reflection is >>>>> computationally expensive, however, when used properly the penalty can >>>>> be negligible. I don't think we have enough understanding of these >>>>> libraries to know whether there is a concerning performance penalty. >>>>> >>>>> As Dewayne said, create, update and delete actions represent a tiny >>>>> fraction of the overall requests into TO. Given that the majority of >>>>> these actions are performed by humans, I would be shocked if there was >>>>> a perceptible performance difference with the reflection based >>>>> validation in place. It's not like we're trying to validate enormous >>>>> and complex objects here; we're talking 20 fields or so for any given >>>>> post. >>>>> >>>>> I'm +1 on using validation libraries such as these even if they use >>>>> reflection, provided that we do not see dramatic changes in >>>>> performance. I think that's highly unlikely in this case. >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> True, but how many of those out-of-the-box checks are both useful and >>>>>> relevantly complex? >>>>>> >>>>>> To me, the cool part of ozzo is the way it collects the output and >>>>>> formats it. That's unfortunately also the computationally expensive >>>>>> part. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Dewayne Richardson < >> dewr...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Please keep in mind that we do not Create/Update/Delete very often in >>>>>>> Traffic Ops, so the performance penalty for Validation should be >> taken >>>>> into >>>>>>> consideration. I also don't want to re-invent all of those >>>>> out-of-the-box >>>>>>> field level checks by hand when I can just use them from here: >>>>>>> https://github.com/asaskevich/govalidator#list-of-functions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Dew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the output style, but I'm a bit concerned on the performance >>>>>>>> front. ozzo appears to do all it's magic with heavy use of >> reflection, >>>>>>>> which is often a slow spot in go. Most places, it wouldn't matter >>>>>>>> much, but this will be called on every element of every API >> function, >>>>>>>> so a nod toward performance may be in order. Have we done some >>>>>>>> measurement to see whether this adds a relevant amount of overhead >> to >>>>>>>> the calls? Or are the calls still dominated by the DB lookup? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Relatedly, is this a major advantage over something like this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if ds.Active == nil { errMsgs = append(errMsgs, `"active" must be >>>>>>>> provided`) } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Dewayne Richardson < >>>>> dewr...@apache.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> We've been moving along with more functionality in the Golang >> proxy, >>>>>>>> mostly >>>>>>>>> the Read's up until now, comparatively TO does much fewer >>>>> Create/Updates. >>>>>>>>> Our current task is to circle back and start implementing the >>>>> (C)reate, >>>>>>>>> (U)pdate, and (D)eletes. One of the obvious needs for the this >> task >>>>> are >>>>>>>>> validation rules. I've been doing research to figure out the >>>>> cleanest >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> most maintainable way to rewrite the Perl validation rules in Go. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> TC Issue for tracking >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/issues/1756 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These are the two dependencies I'd like to leverage and provide >>>>> feedback: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Both are MIT Licenses >>>>>>>>> Uses normal programming constructs rather than error-prone struct >>>>> tags to >>>>>>>>> specify how data should be validated. >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/go-ozzo/ozzo-validation >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/go-ozzo/ozzo-validation/blob/master/LICENSE >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Core Validation library that the prior library uses that has a lot >> of >>>>>>>>> useful convenience methods that I'd rather not re-invent >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/asaskevich/govalidator >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/asaskevich/govalidator#list-of-functions >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/asaskevich/govalidator/blob/master/LICENSE >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And here is how I've used these as sample validation rules that >> I've >>>>>>>>> implemented as a POC: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/dewrich/incubator-trafficcontrol/blob/ >>>>>>>> tor-api-ds/traffic_ops/traffic_ops_golang/deliveryservice/ >>>>>>>> deliveryservices.go#L93 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Existing Mojo Perl Rules for comparison. >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/blob/ >>>>>>>> master/traffic_ops/app/lib/API/Deliveryservice.pm#L1363 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Dew >>>>>>>> >>>>> >> >>
