Skip to content

Conversation

@boks1971
Copy link
Contributor

Would be nice to set size of redacted field back into the message, but that does not work for all types.

Still not useful where size of the redacted field would be good to have.

boks1971 and others added 2 commits November 19, 2025 11:39
Would be nice to set size of redacted field back into the message, but
that does not work for all types.
@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Nov 20, 2025

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 530b863

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

💥 An error occurred when fetching the changed packages and changesets in this PR
Some errors occurred when validating the changesets config:
The package or glob expression "github.com/livekit/protocol" specified in the `fixed` option does not match any package in the project. You may have misspelled the package name or provided an invalid glob expression. Note that glob expressions must be defined according to https://www.npmjs.com/package/micromatch.

@paulwe
Copy link
Contributor

paulwe commented Nov 20, 2025

this will only work if clone is called directly on the proto with the redacted fields. if the redacted field is in a nested proto it won't be scrubbed

@boks1971
Copy link
Contributor Author

this will only work if clone is called directly on the proto with the redacted fields. if the redacted field is in a nested proto it won't be scrubbed

oh, it has to walk the tree? so not useful, will close the PR. Was trying to see if there is something we can do to avoid manual redaction in twirp services

@boks1971
Copy link
Contributor Author

Does not work for nested protos. Closing.

@boks1971 boks1971 closed this Nov 20, 2025
@boks1971 boks1971 deleted the raja_redated_clone branch November 20, 2025 05:41
@paulwe
Copy link
Contributor

paulwe commented Nov 20, 2025

i didn't mean we should close it, it's a good idea. just need to add more reflection bits to traverse nested data structures

@boks1971
Copy link
Contributor Author

i didn't mean we should close it, it's a good idea. just need to add more reflection bits to traverse nested data structures

Got it. Will take a look.

@boks1971 boks1971 restored the raja_redated_clone branch November 20, 2025 06:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants