Grpc interceptor request22.10.2020
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together. Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. Already on GitHub?Building high performance microservices with Kubernetes, Go, and gRPC (Google Cloud Next '17)
Sign in to your account. CC jtattermusch. They are provided for interceptor implementors to be able to intercept additional events in async or streaming calls.
The initial interceptor hook is only invoked at the beginning of the call. If we are going to make them public, now would be a good time. I could just remove all of this mess. I agree, and have a few other helper extension methods in mind. I wanted to keep this PR minimal to the core hooks to make it easier to review If we open up the constructors, this whole thing becomes unnecessary.
Also, more generally, there is always some risk associated with exposing lower-level APIs to end users, because non-expert users tend to shoot themselves in the foot if you expose too much of the internals - and gRPC users shouldn't be required to become experts before they can use gRPC efficiently. The members are already public, so we cannot remove them and the constructor at the moment is basically initializing the existing members. We will be able to add additional constructors should we add new members as long as we can find sensible defaults for values.
In effect, by exposing this functionality within this PR under the interceptor API, we are transitively doing most of this API retention cost admittedly it is a bit contained, but still would be breaking.
gRPC Authorization using Interceptors in Java
I do agree that polishing the constructor now makes sense, but I don't see anything wrong with it. What would be the ideal in your opinion?
What do you think about not opening the constructors but adding a static factory method that returns a new instance? The advantage would be that we will retain the freedom to unseal the class and return a derived instance without an API breakage, but it is debatable that it would be worth much.
The PR for publicizing constructors is here: though I am still open to the static factory route idea. Also, I think the name "next" can easily be confused as having to do with streaming, so we could come up with a better name I think naming the delegate would also help here. Impartial about the delegate type making much of a difference, since this is the only place they are used, but if you think that'd be better, I'll change to that.
How about continuation for the name? I have changed my mind a bit on continuation and have reservations about it since in the retry case, you can invoke it more than once and you can choose not to call it at all.
How about invokerthough the downside is it is not an instance of CallInvoker. What's the order of interceptors being applied if I do. Interept interceptor1. Intercept interceptor2?
I assume it's the "decorator" style, so the interceptor applied as last will be invoked first which is the same order as if I stacked CallInvokers on top of each other.If you have given a try to gRPCprobably you want to follow the same technique and you will wish that the experience was the same.
I've faced this challenge, in order to log the requests to my RPC services and I've been looking for a solution where:.
Logging gRPC requests using Serilog
Start by download the Sample code from gRPC. You can find the instructions here. Console -Version 3. I'm using the Console Sink for demonstration proposes. This interceptor is just logging the Status Code for each request and the time used to complete the execution.
To take effect, you need to bind the interceptor to the Service you want. To do that, go to the Program. The Intercept method is an extension method, so don't forget to use Grpc.
Interceptors namespace. If you have multiple services being part of the execution of a particular request, most probably you would take advantage of having a Correlation ID to track the execution of a given request in every service.
If you don't have one, I highly recommend you to do it. In this example, we will be sending the Correlation ID as an gRPC request header and change the Interceptor to add it to every log line. In the interceptor, access to the Correlation ID and push it to Serilog as a property. In this way, every single log entry on that context will have the Correlation Id property available. Go back to the GreeterServer Program and change the logger configuration to have a template where you use the Correlation ID and configure the log enrichment with the context properties.
In this tutorial, we created a simple gRPC interceptor. Now you have a request log with status codes and timings.However, the upstream gRPC codebase is relatively bare bones. This package, and most of its child packages provides commonly needed middleware for gRPC: client-side interceptors for retires, server-side interceptors for input validation and auth, functions for chaining said interceptors, metadata convenience methods and more.
By default, gRPC doesn't allow one to have more than one interceptor either on the client nor on the server side. Simple way of turning a multiple interceptors into a single interceptor.
Here's an example for server chaining:. The retry interceptor will call every interceptor that follows it whenever when a retry happens.
Implementing your own interceptor is pretty trivial: there are interfaces for that. But the interesting bit exposing common data to handlers and other middlewaresimilarly to HTTP Middleware design. For example, you may want to pass the identity of the caller from the auth interceptor all the way to the handling function. Unfortunately, it's not as easy for streaming RPCs.
For example:. Execution is done in left-to-right order, including passing of context. For example ChainStreamClient one, two, three will execute one before two before three. For example ChainUnaryServer one, two, three will execute one before two before three. If you want to pass context between interceptors, use WrapServerStream. For example ChainUnaryClient one, two, three will execute one before two before three. For example ChainUnaryServer one, two, three will execute one before two before three, and three will see context changes of one and two.
WithStreamServerChain is a grpc. Server config option that accepts multiple stream interceptors. Basically syntactic sugar. WithUnaryServerChain is a grpc. Server config option that accepts multiple unary interceptors. Context returns the wrapper's WrappedContext, overwriting the nested grpc. Toggle navigation GoDoc. Home About. Check it out at pkg. Always use pkg. StreamClientInterceptor grpc.
StreamServerInterceptor grpc. UnaryClientInterceptor grpc.
UnaryServerInterceptor grpc. You can assign it.
Subscribe to RSS
The dark mode beta is finally here. Change your preferences any time. Stack Overflow for Teams is a private, secure spot for you and your coworkers to find and share information. The first is a Unary Server Interceptor where I'm easily able to log the request parameters using the object passed into the interceptor function. How can I do the same with the Stream Server Interceptor which doesn't conveniently pass the request object as a parameter?
Is there another way to access the request? This is a bit old now, but the easiest way to extend your interception into the stream is to create a grpc. ServerStream wrapper, then wrap the real ServerStream in your interceptor. In that way, your intercepting code can handle the received and sent messages in the stream. The stream handler can be called multiple times during the lifetime of the request that created the stream, that's why the request is not part of the arguments to the handler and to any interceptor, either.
You could place the request or better, a copy of the data that you want logged and not a reference to the request itself in the stream context assuming you are in control of the code that creates the ServerStream object. I would rather log the request parameters once, when the stream is created and not on every call to the handler so each request is logged once only.
Learn more. Asked 1 year, 9 months ago. Active 1 year, 6 months ago. Viewed 2k times. UnaryServerInfo, handler grpc. FullMethod, context, time. StreamServerInfo, handler grpc. FullMethod, stream.NET Core-based apps. This document highlights the key differences for migrating between the two stacks.
In the ASP. In contrast, gRPC C-core by default binds to a service with a singleton lifetime. A scoped lifetime allows the service implementation to resolve other services with scoped lifetimes. For example, a scoped lifetime can also resolve DbContext from the DI container through constructor injection. Using scoped lifetime:. For more information on service lifetimes, see Dependency injection in ASP.
NET Core. NET Core, it's possible to change the service lifetime of the service implementation from scoped to singleton. This involves adding an instance of the service implementation to the DI container:. However, a service implementation with a singleton lifetime is no longer able to resolve scoped services through constructor injection. In C-core-based apps, settings such as grpc. In ASP. For more information on configuration, see gRPC for.
NET configuration. C-core-based apps rely on the GrpcEnvironment to configure the logger for debugging purposes. The ASP. For example, a logger can be added to the gRPC service via constructor injection:. Ports property. A similar concept is used to configure servers in ASP. For example, Kestrel uses endpoint configuration for this functionality. NET Core middleware and interceptors are conceptually similar. You may also leave feedback directly on GitHub. Skip to main content.
Exit focus mode. Using scoped lifetime: A new instance of the service implementation is constructed for each request. It isn't possible to share state between requests via instance members on the implementation type. The expectation is to store shared states in a singleton service in the DI container. The stored shared states are resolved in the constructor of the gRPC service implementation. AddGrpc ; services. Logging C-core-based apps rely on the GrpcEnvironment to configure the logger for debugging purposes.
For example, a logger can be added to the gRPC service via constructor injection: public class GreeterService : Greeter.
Both: Are used to construct a pipeline that handles a gRPC request. Allow work to be performed before or after the next component in the pipeline. GetHttpContext extension method. Note that this feature is specific to interceptors running in ASP. Provide access to: The deserialized message sent to a call.The issue is that I cannot configure the Release build to enforce compiler's "-O2" optimizations without hacking through all dependencies' CMakeLists.
It's difficult to believe that there is no easy way to switch the optimizations on and off in gRPC We've looked into gRPC-native health checks, but I don't think there is anything to share at the moment. It closes the TCP connection without sending anything.
I assume in that case my gRPC function will be called in one of those threads. What about if I intercept both request and response using a server interceptor? I see request logging happened with the same thread as my function will be called afterwards, and response logging happend in one of the ForkJoinPool threads.
My understanding is if you specify executors, there will not be any default cached threadpool. Is it also the case with ForkJoinPool too? As I am not using default executor, shouldn't my response log also happen in my the specified threadpool?
Or is my understanding is wrong? Where communities thrive Join over 1. People Repo info.
Eric Anderson. Pablo Cariel. Dmitrii Ustiugov. Is there a way to generate Swagger files using Swagger protoc plugin only for services, and not generate Swagger files for other. Hi, when using a ServerTransportFilter, is there any way to let the client add anything to the Attributes received? I'd like the server to get the id of the connecting client.
Iwan Aucamp. All other forms of client identification should be per-RPC. Hi, guys. I'm newbie in grpc. I have project on golang. And this project uses gogoproto. But if I try generate from proto to go I have this mistakes. I have this files in my src but anyway I have mistakes. I will be very grateful if someone could help me.It can be used as an alternative to configuring stand-alone gRPC client instances. Factory integration is available in the Grpc. ClientFactory NuGet package.
ConfigureServicesspecifying the gRPC typed client class and service address:. The client can now be injected and consumed directly in types created by DI. Standard HttpClientFactory methods can be used to add outgoing request middleware or to configure the underlying HttpClientHandler of the HttpClient :. Call context propagation works by reading the deadline and cancellation token from the current gRPC request context and automatically propagating them to outgoing calls made by the gRPC client.
Call context propagation is an excellent way of ensuring that complex, nested gRPC scenarios always propagate the deadline and cancellation. You may also leave feedback directly on GitHub.
Skip to main content. Exit focus mode. The factory offers the following benefits: Provides a central location for configuring logical gRPC client instances Manages the lifetime of the underlying HttpClientMessageHandler Automatic propagation of deadline and cancellation in an ASP.
ConfigureServicesspecifying the gRPC typed client class and service address: services. Standard HttpClientFactory methods can be used to add outgoing request middleware or to configure the underlying HttpClientHandler of the HttpClient : services. Add Interceptor instances that the client will use when making gRPC calls. Additional resources Call gRPC services with the. Yes No. Any additional feedback? Skip Submit. Send feedback about This product This page. This page.
Submit feedback. There are no open issues. View on GitHub. Is this page helpful?