Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add scheme option to bind to both HTTP and HTTPS #1215

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Aug 1, 2023

Conversation

raz-amir
Copy link
Contributor

We have a use case where we need the same server to run in both HTTP and HTTPS.
This PR starts two servers when needed (the default single HTTPS server is kept).
It is controlled by adding/changing the following command line arguments:

  1. Existing scheme argument can now get the value both
  2. New port-http argument, defaults to 8080, is used to bind HTTP port only when scheme is set to both. To clarify: to maintain backwards compatibility, when the scheme is set to http, this argument isn't used. The previous port will be used to bind HTTPS.

Added/updated tests
Updated README

@raz-amir raz-amir marked this pull request as ready for review June 15, 2023 10:15
@fsouza
Copy link
Owner

fsouza commented Jun 23, 2023

We have a use case where we need the same server to run in both HTTP and HTTPS.

Interesting. Can you share more details on that use case? Like, why you need the server to bind on both?

@raz-amir
Copy link
Contributor Author

@fsouza, we have an internal testing setup that is running with http because it was easier to setup. We want to use gsutil in that setup, and it supports https only.

main.go Outdated
Comment on lines 88 to 93
if cfg.Scheme != "both" {
startServer(logger, &cfg, cfg.Scheme)
} else {
startServer(logger, &cfg, "http")
startServer(logger, &cfg, "https")
}
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we setup two listeners that point to the same server instance? I feel like that would make the most sense.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@fsouza , I can do that, although I am not sure there is a big penalty when having two servers.
Started implementing but ran into lister code inside NewServerWithOptions which complicates a bit the transition to 2 listeners with a single server:
https://github.com/ramir-savvy/fake-gcs-server/blob/ea0ba662c5381c1317c13151f231e361cb7e51e9/fakestorage/server.go#L163

options.NoListener is set to true by default and only set to false in the tests.
Can you clarify its use?
If the NewServerWithOptions function just returned in that line instead of starting listeners for tests it would be easier.
Or maybe keep it as it is and ignore that in the server run because it is relevant just for tests?

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

although I am not sure there is a big penalty when having two servers

I was under the assumption that you wanted both servers to serve the same underlying buckets and objects? Without that, the memory backend will not have the same underlying objects, and I'd prefer that we don't diverge the capabilities of the backends here.

We can also decouple the backend from the server (i.e. support taking a backend instance in the server constructor), and in that case having two servers won't matter (similar to how the grpc server takes the backend instance).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@fsouza , you are right of course, I didn't take that into account.

I have pushed a commit that changes the code to have 2 listeners and a single server.
I looked at decoupling the backend from the server but it didn't seem to be so trivial.
Let me know what you think. Thanks

@fsouza
Copy link
Owner

fsouza commented Jun 24, 2023

@ramir-savvy gotcha, thanks for clarifying!

@raz-amir raz-amir requested a review from fsouza June 28, 2023 14:09
Copy link
Owner

@fsouza fsouza left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you take a look at the test failure? Thanks!

@raz-amir
Copy link
Contributor Author

Apologies @fsouza !
First: I was focused on "both" and neglected testing without the scheme param - fixed now.
Second: I didn't notice that you ran the tests, so I wasn't aware of the failure till you pinged me - Can you ping me when you start rerunning the tests?
Thanks

Copy link
Owner

@fsouza fsouza left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you! It looks like some examples are failing due to the comment I left about existing usages of -scheme http -port <something>.

Let me know what you think!

main.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
main.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
main.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 181 to 184
port := c.Port
if scheme == "http" {
port = c.PortHTTP
}
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Won't this be a breaking change? Like, if I'm currently using fake-gcs-server like this:

fake-gcs-server -scheme http -port 8080

The server will now start on port 8000 instead of 8080.

I know this is fairly complicated, but could we make it so:

  1. port and port-http no longer have a default at the flag definition. We'll handle it ourselves
  2. if the user specifies -scheme http and -port, we use that port (keep current behavior)
  3. if the user specifies just -scheme http, we use the default -port (keep current behavior)
  4. if the user specifies just -scheme both, we'll use the default -port and -port-http
  5. if the user doesn't provide any flags, we'll use the default -port and -scheme https

Perhaps we can turn each of the 5 examples in test cases for the function/core logic that handles this.

We may be able to implement this custom logic with a custom implementation of flag.Value, but it sounds tricky as it'd need to be aware of the value of another flag. The biggest advantage of using a custom flag.Value is differentiating between the user not providing the flag and setting it to 0 (I'm not super concerned about that though - right now if the user sets it to 0, we start the server in a random port, but never print that port to the user, so who cares? heh)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@raz-amir raz-amir Jul 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are correct. I overlooked the http port in my last fix and broke the behavior, that I previously maintained. Thanks for catching that!

I implemented the port and port-http without defaults in the flag API but set it myself in the code if their value is 0. As you suggest, I also think that no one uses it today with port 0, so I don't think it is a breaking change, so I didn't implement the custom flag.Value.
I have an idea of how to implement it, maybe using flag.Visit, and I will do it if you think it is needed.
Please let me know.

Implemented after all using flag.Visit - so the port 0 can be set by a user as before.

Will work on adding the test cases soon.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@fsouza
Added unit tests to cover the examples you listed and few more to be on the safe side. The tests found an issue with both scheme in the cfg.externalURL config - fixed.
Added 2 more runs to the github action to cover both scheme with default and non-default ports.

Let me know what you think. Thanks

Copy link
Owner

@fsouza fsouza left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you!

@fsouza fsouza merged commit a33604b into fsouza:main Aug 1, 2023
@raz-amir
Copy link
Contributor Author

raz-amir commented Aug 1, 2023

@fsouza, I just learned that after all there is a breaking change with this PR.
Before this PR, when the server was started with -scheme http without specifying -port, the default port was 4443 (even though it was http). This PR changed it to 8000.
Sorry about that.
I will submit a PR soon to revert this behavior.

megglos added a commit to camunda/camunda that referenced this pull request Aug 1, 2023
In 1.47 the default port changed to 8000 if http is used.
This also sets it explicitly should it ever change again.
See fsouza/fake-gcs-server#1215 .
megglos added a commit to camunda/camunda that referenced this pull request Aug 1, 2023
In 1.47 the default port changed to 8000 if http is used.
This also sets it explicitly should it ever change again.
See fsouza/fake-gcs-server#1215 .
raz-amir added a commit to raz-amir/fake-gcs-server that referenced this pull request Aug 1, 2023
megglos added a commit to camunda/camunda that referenced this pull request Aug 1, 2023
In 1.47 the default port changed to 8000 if http is used.
This also sets it explicitly should it ever change again.
See fsouza/fake-gcs-server#1215 .
ghost pushed a commit to camunda/camunda that referenced this pull request Aug 1, 2023
13738: fix(ci): configure fake gcs server port r=oleschoenburg a=megglos

## Description

In 1.47 the default port changed to 8000 if http is used. This also sets it explicitly should it ever change again. See fsouza/fake-gcs-server#1215 .

Co-authored-by: Meggle (Sebastian Bathke) <sebastian.bathke@camunda.com>
backport-action pushed a commit to camunda/camunda that referenced this pull request Aug 1, 2023
In 1.47 the default port changed to 8000 if http is used.
This also sets it explicitly should it ever change again.
See fsouza/fake-gcs-server#1215 .

(cherry picked from commit eebcda3)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants