search

dapr / go-sdk

Dapr SDK for go
Apache License 2.0
446 stars 171 forks source link

Examples: Added Crypto #492

Closed sadath-12 closed 9 months ago

sadath-12 commented 9 months ago

Description

Taking direct reference from https://github.com/dapr/quickstarts/tree/master/cryptography/go/sdk

The reason to add it here is to make sure our linter detects if any buggy changes happening to crypto code

Issue reference

Please reference the issue this PR will close: #395

Checklist

Please make sure you've completed the relevant tasks for this PR, out of the following list:

codecov[bot] commented 9 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (04f7b59) 70.08% compared to head (c215be9) 70.08%. Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #492 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 70.08% 70.08% ======================================= Files 35 35 Lines 2841 2841 ======================================= Hits 1991 1991 Misses 738 738 Partials 112 112 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

mikeee commented 9 months ago

I'm all for adding validation flows to the sdk. Just not sure about committing relatively large binaries from the quickstarts to the repo.

daixiang0 commented 9 months ago

Use a markdown file with little words is enough, we can comment it ( the file type and size we support etc.) in the doc

sadath-12 commented 9 months ago

I'm all for adding validation flows to the sdk. Just not sure about committing relatively large binaries from the quickstarts to the repo.

which large binaries?

sadath-12 commented 9 months ago

its just one main.go which would also help us to validate in our ci easily also I had the same thought which you commented . but if we have a look carefully there are many other examples directly taken from examples repo including pubsub (only few things are changed but overall its same) so I had to make a choice of consistency here

mikeee commented 9 months ago

This needs to be added to the validation workflow to have any effect on CI. I'll get a PR raised