CEL Interperter for Conditions #354
Conversation
…n parsing if the condition has the `cel:` prefix. Signed-off-by: Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
…s with cel built in expressions. Signed-off-by: Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
limitador/src/limit.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| // we can't access simple variables that conflict with built-ins (the vars map) | ||
| let limit = limit_with_condition(vec![r#"cel: vars == "hello" "#]); | ||
| assert!(!limit.applies(&values)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Real minor neat, but the ! I find so easy to miss (tho you did put a clear comment there), and clippy will complain about assert_eq!(cond, false), what I recently started doing for these assert!(!false), is that I use std::ops::Not and try to express these as assert!(limit.applies(&values).not()) instead. Now don't feel you need to use the same pattern, just sharing…
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I miss it all the time.. kinda wish there was an assert_not!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd just bump the cel-interpreter (if only in the lock file)
But looks good to me! Great addition I think… There might be more work to do with this (e.g. possibly not allow for crazy complicated expression, make sure the expression results in a Bool one, more?…)
limitador/Cargo.toml
Outdated
| @@ -33,6 +34,8 @@ async-trait = "0.1" | |||
| cfg-if = "1" | |||
| tracing = "0.1.40" | |||
| metrics = "0.22.3" | |||
| cel-parser = "0.6.0" | |||
| cel-interpreter = "0.5.0" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
0.7 is out and you inherited my lock file I guess… might deal with our size vs size() better...
Signed-off-by: Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
helper functions. Signed-off-by: Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
| @@ -915,7 +923,7 @@ mod tests { | |||
| values.insert("x".into(), "1".into()); | |||
| values.insert("y".into(), "1".into()); | |||
|
|
|||
| assert!(!limit.applies(&values)) | |||
| assert_false!(limit.applies(&values)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎉 ...
But so you know this will report in a slightly confusing way:
assertion failed: !limit.applies(&values)
with the change above it'd be, I think clearer:
assertion failed: assert_false!(limit.applies(&values)) was true!
where now assert_false!(limit.applies(&values)) matches code the user wrote
limitador/src/limit.rs
Outdated
| macro_rules! assert_false { | ||
| ($cond:expr $(,)?) => { | ||
| paste::item! { | ||
| assert!(!$cond) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See below, so I'd change this to:
- assert!(!$cond)
+ assert!(!$cond, "assertion failed: assert_false!({}) was true!", stringify!($cond))There was a problem hiding this comment.
sounds good to me. updated.
Signed-off-by: Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
|
Closing this in favor of #396 which drops support for all the legacy syntax altogether |
Continues on #254 in a way that is backward compatible. To use cel based conditions, you must prefix your condition with
cel: