lxbme opened a new pull request, #3449:
URL: https://github.com/apache/apisix-dashboard/pull/3449
Please answer these questions before submitting a pull request, **or your PR
will get closed**.
**Why submit this pull request?**
- [x] Bugfix
**What changes will this PR take into?**
This implements the "cheapest structural guard" proposed in the
"hand-written zod transcription" item of the frontend review in #3417: a CI
test asserting the dashboard's zod resource schemas are *looser or equal* to
APISIX's own schema, so the recurring "form rejects a config the gateway
accepts" class (#3146/#3147/#3362/#3376/#3395) can't silently reappear.
**How it works**
- APISIX exposes its own per-resource JSON schema at `GET
/apisix/admin/schema/<resource>`. `scripts/refresh-gateway-schema.mjs` (run via
`pnpm refresh:gateway-schema`) snapshots the 11 resources that expose one —
route, service, upstream, consumer, ssl, global_rule, plugin_config,
consumer_group, stream_route, proto, credential — into
`src/types/schema/apisix/__fixtures__/gateway/`. (`secret` is omitted: it is
schema'd per-manager and the bare endpoint returns 400.) The snapshot is
committed and refreshed on APISIX version bumps; `_meta.json` records the
version (currently 3.17.0).
- `src/types/schema/apisix/gateway-contract.test.ts` runs in the unit suite
(no gateway needed). For each top-level property the gateway defines it
asserts, against the merged dashboard schema: (a) the zod schema knows the
field (else the form's resolver silently strips it on submit), and (b) the zod
field accepts every value the gateway's enum allows.
- Fields the dashboard does not model live in an `ALLOWLIST` with a reason —
intentional non-support, or a KNOWN GAP flagged for follow-up; never a silent
omission. A stale allowlist entry (a field zod now covers) also fails the test,
forcing cleanup.
**What it already caught**
Populating the allowlist surfaced one genuine "form too strict" gap, plus
several intentional differences:
- **KNOWN GAP — `upstream.scheme` omits `"kafka"`**: the gateway accepts a
kafka-scheme upstream; the dashboard's zod enum does not, so it cannot be
created via the form. Allowlisted with a note and flagged for a follow-up fix
(which also needs UI support). This is exactly the class the test exists to
surface.
- Intentional differences (allowlisted with reasons): `consumer.id` /
`credential.name` (keyed by username / id in the dashboard),
`proto.{name,labels,desc}` (content-only form), `consumer_group.name` (no
separate name field), `upstream.{create_time,update_time}` (server-managed, not
modelled), and `stream_route.name` (the base read schema omits it, but it *is*
accepted on the write path via `StreamRoutePostSchema`, per #3437).
**Scope** (kept to the "cheapest guard"): top-level properties only — nested
objects and plugin configs (which the dashboard passes through, not
transcribes) are out of scope, as is required-ness (the full read schema
requires server-managed id/timestamps the write path omits, so comparing it
produces only false positives). The longer-term JSON-Schema-driven form work
(#3347/#3311/#2986) is unaffected.
**Related issues**
Part of #3417
**Checklist:**
- [x] Did you explain what problem does this PR solve? Or what new features
have been added?
- [x] Have you added corresponding test cases?
- [x] Have you modified the corresponding document?
- [x] Is this PR backward compatible? If it is not backward compatible,
please discuss on the mailing list first
This is a test + fixtures + a dev script only — no application/runtime code
changes — so there is nothing for the e2e suite to exercise. Verified with
`tsc`, ESLint, and the unit suite (`pnpm test`, which CI now runs). The test's
sensitivity was confirmed by adding a fake property to a fixture (goes red
naming the field) and by the stale-allowlist check.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
