Skip to content

fix(AIP-160): clarify unset field in traversal behavior #1469

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
noahdietz merged 8 commits into from
Mar 14, 2025
Merged

fix(AIP-160): clarify unset field in traversal behavior #1469

Changes from 7 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
dc1fe82
fix(AIP-160): clarify unset field in traversal behavior
noahdietz Jan 7, 2025
66657b5
Merge branch 'master' into aip-160-unset-traversal
noahdietz Jan 9, 2025
be4f396
Merge branch 'master' into aip-160-unset-traversal
noahdietz Jan 13, 2025
468f5a2
Merge branch 'master' into aip-160-unset-traversal
noahdietz Jan 24, 2025
f3a2415
Merge branch 'master' into aip-160-unset-traversal
noahdietz Mar 13, 2025
ff4644d
Merge branch 'master' into aip-160-unset-traversal
noahdietz Mar 14, 2025
d46895b
chore: include nuance of != in unset case
noahdietz Mar 14, 2025
feb6c13
Merge branch 'master' into aip-160-unset-traversal
noahdietz Mar 14, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions aip/general/0160.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -138,6 +138,13 @@ the service **should** return an error with `INVALID_ARGUMENT`. A service
**may** permit traversal to undefined keys on maps and structs, and **should**
document how it behaves in this situation.

When evaluating an expression involving a traversal, if any non-primitive field
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jskeet jskeet Jan 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What about if the comparison is a "not equal" one?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@noahdietz noahdietz Jan 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Regardless of the comparison in that case, it is skipped, at least that is my understanding of the feedback I got from maintainers. Unset == no value comparison at all.

I believe this is because of the ambiguity of the intent in such a filter - do they want to filter for entries that have a set and a.b != "foo" OR do they want to filter for entries that either do not have a set or a set and a.b != "foo".

This is where a Has operator would come into play e.g. "has: a AND a.b != "foo""

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jskeet jskeet Mar 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That makes sense - but maybe it would be good to include an inequality in the list (or highlight it here) to make it clear? Basically, if I wasn't sure of the behavior without clarification, I suspect others may be in a similar position.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@noahdietz noahdietz Mar 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right, fair enough! I've included a sentence to this effect - same logic applies even when using != which would imply matching on empty values.

in the chain is not set on the entry being evaluated, the entry **should** be
skipped i.e. not match the filter expression. This applies even when the
comparison is a `!=`, which would imply matching on empty values. In the
examples above, if resource field `a` is not set on the resource instance, that
instance is skipped as a non-match.

**Important:** The `.` operator **must not** be used to traverse through a
repeated field or list, except for specific use with the `:` operator.

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -224,4 +231,5 @@ Schematic validation refers, but is not limited to, the following:

## Changelog

- **2025-01-07**: Clarify behavior for unset field in traversal operator chain.
- **2024-12-11**: Move non-compliant filter guidance to Validation section.