[SERVER-18167] handle BSON validation in OP_COMMAND/OP_COMMANDREPLY Created: 22/Apr/15 Updated: 23/Aug/16 Resolved: 17/Jun/15 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Internal Code |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 3.1.5 |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Adam Midvidy | Assignee: | Adam Midvidy |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||
| Backwards Compatibility: | Fully Compatible | ||||||||||||
| Sprint: | Platform 4 06/05/15, Platform 5 06/26/16 | ||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||
| Description |
|
We currently ignore serverGlobalParams.objcheck. We are going to defer this work for a bit until we figure out how the integration will look. Idea:: make a new DataType<Validated<T>> or similar that we would use in the DataRangeCursor. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Githook User [ 18/Jun/15 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'amidvidy', u'name': u'Adam Midvidy', u'email': u'amidvidy@gmail.com'}Message: |
| Comment by Githook User [ 17/Jun/15 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'amidvidy', u'name': u'Adam Midvidy', u'email': u'amidvidy@gmail.com'}Message: |
| Comment by Adam Midvidy [ 20/May/15 ] |
|
We have the tools in place for this now. The issue is working out the library dependencies. At some point we need to read serverGlobalParams.objcheck and branch. The question is - where? serverGlobalParams currently is part of 'server_options_core' Places we can do it - low level to high level The server_options_core dependency is already quite low, but acm has mentioned that this is undesirable, so we do not want to make it harder to remove. Having a higher level dependency on server_options has the benefit of reducing library entanglement, at the cost of having to potentially thread the parameter through many layers of the codebase. I'm interested to hear your thoughts acm and schwerin. There are other things we can do like moving the state from server_options to service_context, but that seems like just switching from one highly entangled global variable to another. |
| Comment by Githook User [ 18/May/15 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'amidvidy', u'name': u'Adam Midvidy', u'email': u'amidvidy@gmail.com'}Message: |