docs(rfc): separate structural validation from component build#25848
docs(rfc): separate structural validation from component build#25848pront wants to merge 12 commits into
Conversation
github-actions
Bot
added
domain: ci
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
pront
added
the
no-changelog
7563720 to
8ea1964
Compare
github-actions
Bot
removed
the
domain: ci
8ea1964 to
9d53fd9
Compare
pront
changed the title
pront
changed the title
9d53fd9 to
e59f2fe
Compare
pront
changed the title
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: e59f2fe827
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: b19af7cdd0
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9da875cae3
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
706f0da to
c92056b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: c92056b820
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 6b5e5c1ec1
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
…cking sink-audit gate
…lize shared-worker ownership question
…single-owner structural validation
…o Plan Of Attack, drop Outstanding Questions
6b5e5c1 to
44eabd0
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 44eabd01ce
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
…cope contradiction, broaden transform tracking, fix sink schema claim
pront
changed the title
2 participants
Summary
Adds an RFC proposing a two-phase separation of structural validation from component build across
TransformConfigandSinkConfig.Motivation:
build()conflates context-free structural checks (safe to run undervector validate --no-environment) with side-effecting construction (credentials, clients, healthcheck probes). This blocks--no-environmentfrom catching config-level errors in sinks, and allows background tasks spawned inbuild()to leak on topology reload rollback.Design:
validate_structure(&self)— context-free checks (no I/O, no spawning). Owned byConfigBuildercompilation; all call sites inherit the result transitively.validate_with_context(&self, context)— transforms only; compiles VRL/conditions against the assembledTransformContext. Mechanical rename of existingvalidate_env().build()— unchanged signature; gains a no-spawn contract (task transforms excepted until a separate topology-builder change).Scope:
TransformConfigandSinkConfig.SourceConfigdeferred to future work.Rendered
Vector configuration
N/A — no configuration format changes.
How did you test this PR?
RFC only — no code changes.
Change Type
Is this a breaking change?
Does this PR include user facing changes?
no-changeloglabel to this PR.