Page MenuHomePhabricator

[services][blob] Scaffold gRPC server
ClosedPublic

Authored by bartek on Nov 18 2022, 8:23 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F1670570: D5677.diff
Sat, Apr 27, 6:34 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Apr 23, 8:18 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Apr 23, 8:18 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Apr 23, 8:18 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Apr 23, 8:18 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Apr 23, 8:14 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mar 11 2024, 8:24 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mar 5 2024, 1:11 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

Boilerplate for proto interface. The server listens on 50051 port,
this is the default in current C++ implementation for all services. In subsequent diffs
I'll add possibility to configure this.

Depends on D5676

Test Plan

Run the service. Client should be able to send requests, server should send
"unimplemented" error messages to client.

Diff Detail

Repository
rCOMM Comm
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

bartek held this revision as a draft.
bartek published this revision for review.Nov 18 2022, 9:23 AM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Nov 18 2022, 12:04 PM
tomek requested changes to this revision.Nov 22 2022, 6:05 AM
tomek added inline comments.
services/blob/src/main.rs
14 ↗(On Diff #18579)

Shouldn't we use a logging lib instead of println?

services/blob/src/service.rs
2 ↗(On Diff #18579)

Where is this defined? It doesn't seem to be a part of this stack.

23 ↗(On Diff #18579)

We can probably use unimplemented! macro

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Nov 22 2022, 6:05 AM

Does Phabricator require me to re-request reviews every time I reply to comments?

services/blob/src/main.rs
14 ↗(On Diff #18579)

I'm planning to do it later - There's a Linear task for that: https://linear.app/comm/issue/ENG-2308/improve-logging-in-blob-service

services/blob/src/service.rs
2 ↗(On Diff #18579)

It is generated from proto.

23 ↗(On Diff #18579)

Doing it this way allowed me to test if responses are sent to the client.

If the revision shows up as "Needs Revision", that means it's on your queue on not on your reviewers' queue. If you update the diff you'll see that the status switches. Simply adding a comment will not switch the status, so yes you will need to re-request review if you don't think any of your reviewers' comments need to be addressed. This scenario should ideally be rare

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Nov 23 2022, 3:29 AM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.