feat(models): add new package to handle protobuf translation #267
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #267 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 65.00% 65.21% +0.20%
==========================================
Files 19 19
Lines 1366 1374 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 888 896 +8
Misses 434 434
Partials 44 44
|
glimchb
added
the
Merge Candidate
Signed-off-by: Boris Glimcher <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the changes are towards the right direction.
Is it possible instead of writing little code for all objects to just first write all the code or significant part of it just for one or two objects (e.g. VRF and SVI or LB and BP) so I can review the code better and be sure that I am agreeing with the translation approach ?
That would really help me reviewing the code
This change defines interfaces. With new package, New and To functions and enough code to understand the new structure. The content of each function for specific transformation will come in subsequent PRs |
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| // Bridge object, separate from protobuf for decoupling | ||
| type Bridge struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems like we can also add interface here
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| // Port object, separate from protobuf for decoupling | ||
| type Port struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems like we can also add interface here
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| // Svi object, separate from protobuf for decoupling | ||
| type Svi struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems like we can also add interface here
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| // Vrf object, separate from protobuf for decoupling | ||
| type Vrf struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems like we can also add interface here
|
Approach looks fine overall. The only alternative I think worth considering is using this copier library. It would save you a bit of boilerplate code by defining the field mapping in the struct itself. However, this would only work from pb to struct, not the other way. |
opened #269 I was thinking also marshaling with json for auto-copy approach... will investigate this |
Signed-off-by: Boris Glimcher [email protected]
This is just a first draft and will be amended later on to include more fields and fix Todos...
There are 4 objects:
LogicalBridgeSpecBridgePortSpecSviSpecVrfSpec