[Feature Request] CIDR Validation about protovalidate HOT 3 CLOSED

Hi @Kryan90,
I've created a pull request (#99). I hadn't seen this issue when I made the PR. Having now reviewed the request, I believe my PR might align with what you're looking for. Could you please take a look and let me know if it matches the PR you had in mind? I'm open to feedback and any adjustments needed.
My proposed spec is here: https://github.com/higebu/protovalidate/blob/9f4f80cc1119ecedf5214af4aec3c189acd52902/proto/protovalidate/buf/validate/validate.proto#L2821-L2918
Thank you!

from protovalidate.

Hi @Kryan90, I've created a pull request (#99). I hadn't seen this issue when I made the PR. Having now reviewed the request, I believe my PR might align with what you're looking for. Could you please take a look and let me know if it matches the PR you had in mind? I'm open to feedback and any adjustments needed. My proposed spec is here: https://github.com/higebu/protovalidate/blob/9f4f80cc1119ecedf5214af4aec3c189acd52902/proto/protovalidate/buf/validate/validate.proto#L2821-L2918 Thank you!

This is functionally exactly what I had been looking for, thank you! The naming is slightly different, but I think ip_with_prefixlen is probably a more accurate descriptor anyway

from protovalidate.

Thank you for the comprehensive feature request! The proposed implementations, (buf.validate.field).string.cidr, .string.cidrv4, and .string.cidrv6 seem in line with the existing structure and should provide a clear and consistent validation approach.

Your willingness to contribute to the implementation is much appreciated. We'd be happy to guide you on how implementations are done. Leveraging the existing functions to make this a pure CEL constraint is a compelling idea. If we can achieve that, it'd be ideal as it would remove the need to complete language-specific implementations.

from protovalidate.