Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow Buf CI / verify-proto (pull_request).
|
csirmazbendeguz
force-pushed
the
feat/referrer-cids
branch
4 times, most recently
from
c70ecf2 to
bd1f036
Compare
github-actions
bot
added
size/S
csirmazbendeguz
force-pushed
the
feat/referrer-cids
branch
from
bd1f036 to
b5abad2
Compare
csirmazbendeguz
force-pushed
the
feat/referrer-cids
branch
9 times, most recently
from
542ab0d to
a122fb4
Compare
github-actions
bot
added
size/M
csirmazbendeguz
force-pushed
the
feat/referrer-cids
branch
8 times, most recently
from
4c932ae to
d17f5c7
Compare
paralta
reviewed
Mar 12, 2026
csirmazbendeguz
force-pushed
the
feat/referrer-cids
branch
6 times, most recently
from
1387da8 to
d2b23fe
Compare
2 tasks
csirmazbendeguz
force-pushed
the
feat/referrer-cids
branch
from
d2b23fe to
812ba4a
Compare
paralta
reviewed
Mar 16, 2026
Member
paralta
left a comment
paralta
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Small comment, looking good overall 👍
server/types/store.go
Outdated
| type ReferrerStoreAPI interface { | ||
| // PushReferrer pushes a referrer to content store | ||
| PushReferrer(context.Context, string, *corev1.RecordReferrer) error | ||
| PushReferrer(context.Context, string, *corev1.RecordReferrer) (string, error) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| PushReferrer(context.Context, string, *corev1.RecordReferrer) (string, error) | |
| PushReferrer(context.Context, string, *corev1.RecordReferrer) (*corev1.ReferrerRef, error) |
we should return the new type here
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, I don't like this pattern of passing around protobuf objects like this
I know that this is already a pattern in the project so I will change it for consistency for now...
But it's an anti-pattern IMO. The only protobuf-aware code should be the controllers:
- The controller layer parses, validates & assembles the
protobufobjects - The storage layer doesn't know how data is serialized (separation of concerns)
I didn't mention it as there are bigger issues, but now that you brought it up, maybe I should create an issue for this?
csirmazbendeguz
force-pushed
the
feat/referrer-cids
branch
from
812ba4a to
ecb0c92
Compare
Signed-off-by: Bendegúz Csirmaz <csirmazbendeguz@gmail.com>
csirmazbendeguz
force-pushed
the
feat/referrer-cids
branch
from
ecb0c92 to
8756c5e
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
similar to records, referrer should also have a CID
this PR adds referrer CIDs - when a referrer is pushed, a CID is generated similar to how it's generated for records. the generated CID is returned in the push response