GRPC Compatibility with TYK 2.5.1

Support
,
1

We are currently using TYK open source 2.5.1 version with GRPC plugin. We are maintaining a compiled version of tyk for same & updating GRPC plugin for every middleware change.

Now the issue is, when we are using the updated GRPC build with TYK 2.5.1, it gives 403 error with an API.
Following is the error log coming in tyk logs:
grpc: error unmarshalling request: string field contains invalid UTF-8

So is there any compatibility issue of TYK 2.5.1 with newer GRPC builds.

2

Hi @Lalit_Bansal,

It’ll be difficult to support you without any API definition or plugin code. Are you able to share these?

I should also add that Tyk 2.5.1 is quite old and currently out of support. I wonder if you’d be open to using newer versions :slightly_smiling_face:

3

Hi,

Yes we are also looking to update tyk to newer version.
Could you please suggest any stable version of TYK to which we can upgrade.

Also please provide any document which shows supportability of TYK with other components like pump, redis & GRPC plugin as middleware.

Thanks!

4

Hi,

Could you please suggest any stable version of TYK to which we can upgrade

Please see our long term support policy. We recommend using an LTS release rather than a minor release so that patches and fixes will be available for the longest time.

Also please provide any document which shows supportability of TYK with other components like pump, redis & GRPC plugin as middleware.

We do not directly provide support for redis or GRPC plugins but in terms of compatibility with redis there is a document here

Following is the error log coming in tyk logs:
grpc: error unmarshalling request: string field contains invalid UTF-8
So is there any compatibility issue of TYK 2.5.1 with newer GRPC builds.

gRPC is designed to isolate changes to the gateway from the gRPC plugin and should continue to be compatible across Tyk versions. Bearing in mind that Tyk 2.5.1 has been out of support for so long that no compatibility tests have been done with it for several years, the bottom line is that we don’t know the answer to this question.

A google search for the error you are receiving turned up this which suggests that the order of the buffers may have changed in your new plugin build. Is it possible that there have been changes to the buffer definitions or in protoc itself that cause this?

There is a comment in that link that talks about a field renumbering change which might be the issue.

Cheers,
Pete