client: Some `ContainerService.GetResponse` fields are ignored #224

New issue

Open

opened 2025-12-28 18:07:29 +00:00 by sami · 3 comments

sami commented

2025-12-28 18:07:29 +00:00

Owner

Originally created by @cthulhu-rider on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024).

NeoFS API client ignores
nspcc-dev/neofs-api@62e4ae0f8d/container/service.proto (L215-L219)

this is either:

bug, and client must start to check these fields
redundant information that should be eliminated from the protocol

i'd stand for 2 since fields are not returned, currently nobody is interested in verification info and is satisfied with the container presence

Originally created by @cthulhu-rider on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024). NeoFS API [client](https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/nspcc-dev/neofs-sdk-go/client#Client.ContainerGet) ignores https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neofs-api/blob/62e4ae0f8d62987cb54ab729b16b4f9ed4c0ad4c/container/service.proto#L215-L219 this is either: 1. bug, and client must start to check these fields 2. redundant information that should be eliminated from the protocol i'd stand for 2 since fields are not returned, currently nobody is interested in verification info and is satisfied with the container presence

sami added the

bug

labels

2025-12-28 18:07:29 +00:00

sami commented

2025-12-28 18:07:29 +00:00

Author

Owner

@cthulhu-rider commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024):

same for GetExtendedACL

@cthulhu-rider commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024): same for `GetExtendedACL`

sami commented

2025-12-28 18:07:29 +00:00

Author

Owner

@roman-khimov commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024):

If it ended up in the contract, it can be considered valid, no need to check it additionally. But it's not trivial to remove now at the same time.

@roman-khimov commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024): If it ended up in the contract, it can be considered valid, no need to check it additionally. But it's not trivial to remove now at the same time.

sami commented

2025-12-28 18:07:29 +00:00

Author

Owner

@cthulhu-rider commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2024):

there are other similar cases, e.g. nspcc-dev/neofs-api@e66b25d4bf/object/service.proto (L699) just duplicates the request field (#663). Lets cover all within this issue

@cthulhu-rider commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2024): there are other similar cases, e.g. https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neofs-api/blob/e66b25d4bf2afc4472023e1e2c2467f694f5a0e1/object/service.proto#L699 just duplicates the request field (#663). Lets cover all within this issue