> On Sept. 9, 2017, 7:59 a.m., James Peach wrote: > > This looks pretty reasonable to me. It's unfortunate that this will convert > > all invalid enum names into the default value, but AFAICT that is > > unavoidable. > > Benjamin Mahler wrote: > Since we're talking about optional enums, it's not obvious to me whether > it's better to leave it unset or to set it to the default. With a required > enum, we can't leave it unset so it seems like the default value makes the > most sense. However, shouldn't the caller specify the behavior they want? > Much like `JsonParseOptions.ignore_unknown_fields` is an explicit option? > This would be something like `use_default_for_unknown_enum_values`? > > Qian Zhang wrote: > @Ben, the problem is when `Content-Type` is `application/x-protobuf`, our > current implementation is an inexistent enum value will be parsed to the > default enum value (i.e., `UNKNOWN`), that is what we have done in > MESOS-4997, but when `Content-Type` is `application/json`, the current > behavior is different: when parsing an inexistent enum value, we will get an > error like `Failed to find enum for 'xxx'` rather than parsing it to the > default enum value. So in this patch, I just want to make the two protocols > (`application/x-protobuf` and `application/json`) have consistent behavior. > > Benjamin Mahler wrote: > I see, so this is aiming to make it consistent: > > (1) protobuf: unknown enum value -> set to default > (2) json before this change: unknown enum value -> error > (3) json after this change: unknown enum value -> set to default > > When you say "our implementation" for (1), are you referring to what the > protobuf parsing functions are doing? Or something that we implemented? If > it's the former, then this change sounds good to me, since we're just > mimicking the protobuf library parsing behavior in JSON.
> When you say "our implementation" for (1), are you referring to what the > protobuf parsing functions are doing? Or something that we implemented? I am referring to the work that we have done in MESOS-4997, i.e., always use optional enum field and include an UNKNOWN value as the first entry in the enum list, that way any inexistent enum value will be parsed to the default enum value (i.e., UNKNOWN). However, I did not figure out an easy way to verify it, I just infer this behavior based on the description in MESOS-4997. - Qian ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61109/#review185038 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 25, 2017, 11:17 p.m., Qian Zhang wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/61109/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 25, 2017, 11:17 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Mahler and James Peach. > > > Bugs: MESOS-7828 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7828 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Used the default value when parsing an optional enum field. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/protobuf.hpp > 15690b66cc4ae0c1bf2c2176d73c385ca75d3c20 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61109/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > With this patch, when accessing master endpoint with an inexistent enum `xxx` > in a JSON: > ``` > curl -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{"type": "xxx"}' > 127.0.0.1:5050/api/v1 > ``` > The master log will be: > ``` > I0725 23:09:53.097790 665 http.cpp:1133] HTTP POST for /master/api/v1 from > 127.0.0.1:49566 with User-Agent='curl/7.47.0' > I0725 23:09:53.098006 665 http.cpp:669] Processing call UNKNOWN > ``` > This proves when parsing an inexistent enum the default enum value (i.e., > `UNKNOWN`) will be used. > > > Thanks, > > Qian Zhang > >
