Use protovalidate instead of protoc-gen-validate

[adisuissa]

Use protovalidate instead of protoc-gen-validate

Description:
Currently Envoy uses protoc-gen-validate (PGV) which is in maintenance mode.
It seems that the protovalidate is its (spiritual) successor, and is powered by CEL.
It seems to also have a migration tool that may aid us during this process.

cc @htuch, feel free to loop in others that may be interested in this.

[htuch]

It probably makes sense to move to something better supported, and cross-field validators are neat if we want to start using them. I wonder if we could use the proto format tools to convert on-mass. CC @akonradi (for old time sakes :).

[onemanbucket]

Hey, for some reason I chose to spend my evening yesterday looking at this. If this is still of interest I can try to fix this, but I would need some pointers on how / where the validation is actually performed. There's a branch here with my progress so far main...onemanbucket:envoy:erili/protovalidate

• I ran the migration tool
• I manually fixed well_known_regex arguments (they were named differently and the migrator tool didn't account for that)
• Added the new tool to build.

I'm new to this stuff, so not sure if that's 10% of the work or 90% of the work :)

[pdecks]

cc @agrawroh @phlax I'm curious if you've given this any thought and what a potential timeline would be. We're pondering if we need to fork protoc-gen-validate and add 3.13 support.

[phlax]

i missed this - but now i see situation - i think probably asap - would be really happy to review any prs to resolve

[jtlisi]

@mmorel-35 Are you still working on this? If not, I would be happy to take it up.

[mmorel-35]

@jtlisi ,

I have started with cncf/xds#124 then cncf/xds#124 but it is starting to be huge ...

Feel free to work on it if you have a less invasive idea

[jtlisi]

Feel free to work on it if you have a less invasive idea

@mmorel-35 No I think what you are doing is the best path forward.