fix(policy)!: Make legacy flag optional

[c-r33d]

Proposed Changes

1.) Make legacy flag optional within AsymmetricKey.

Doing this because a field of type bool with a value of false will be omitted from a JSON response, when using omitempty.

Important

Currently not used within any downstream clients.
Only located within release v0.7 protocol/go
Plan on backporting.

Checklist

• I have added or updated unit tests
• I have added or updated integration tests (if appropriate)
• I have added or updated documentation

Testing Instructions

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @c-r33d, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request modifies the AsymmetricKey structure to make the legacy flag optional. This change involves updating the Protocol Buffer definition to explicitly mark the legacy field as optional, adjusting the corresponding gRPC documentation, and updating existing Go test cases to correctly handle the legacy field as a pointer to a boolean, reflecting its new optional nature. The change aims to provide more flexibility for this flag, which is noted as not currently being used by downstream clients.

Highlights

• Protocol Buffer Definition Update: The legacy field in the CreateKeyRequest message within key_access_server_registry.proto has been changed from a required bool to an optional bool.
• Documentation Update: The gRPC documentation (docs/grpc/index.html) has been updated to reflect that the legacy field is now optional.
• Test Case Adaptations: Existing Go test cases in service/integration/kas_registry_key_test.go and service/policy/kasregistry/key_access_server_registry_keys_test.go have been updated to use a pointer to a boolean (&legacyTrue) for the Legacy field, aligning with its new optional status.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

---

Optional field, Now a choice, not a must, Code adapts with grace.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request makes the legacy flag in AsymmetricKey optional. The changes correctly update the protobuf definition, the generated documentation, and the test files to reflect this change. The use of optional in the proto file and pointers to booleans in the Go test code is appropriate for making the field optional.

My main feedback is on a minor code style point in the tests to improve readability and maintainability by avoiding a new package-level variable. Overall, the changes are well-implemented and achieve the stated goal.

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	175.960353ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	98.865517ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	350.112566ms
Throughput	285.62 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	36.930999669s
Average Latency	367.695212ms
Throughput	135.39 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	25.594945636s
Average Latency	254.546828ms
Throughput	195.35 requests/second

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	176.167318ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	95.74748ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	363.817485ms
Throughput	274.86 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	37.663226971s
Average Latency	374.444878ms
Throughput	132.76 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	25.729566414s
Average Latency	256.133422ms
Throughput	194.33 requests/second

[c-r33d]

/gemini review

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly makes the legacy flag in the AsymmetricKey message optional. The change is consistently applied across the Protobuf definitions, database layer, tests, and documentation. The implementation is sound and achieves the stated goal. I have one minor suggestion to improve code conciseness in the database access layer.

[c-r33d]

Closing because we decided it was fine to have the field omitted when false.