Improve config validation code #129
Open
Conversation
This file contains 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
added 19 commits
September 10, 2024 14:37
…eConfigInterface 'inheritance' for userplaneInformation config
…ith pointers are correctly validated
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I noticed that the validation of SMF config fields contains unnecessary code and does not use
govalidatorthroughout. Instead, customValidate()functions are written, which in most cases only callgovalidator.ValidateStruct().Using the possibility to add custom validators, I have added a few of them for complex nested structs in the UserPlaneInformation struct.
In addition, I have added unit tests to make sure the validation of my new functions works as expected.
inb4 confusion: I have rebased my changes on my other open PR #120, because it also makes changes to the configuration of UPNodes.