Add call to AllowMissingFileDescriptors in lib/netext/grpcext/reflect.go

[Lordnibbler]

What?

Add call to AllowMissingFileDescriptors in lib/netext/grpcext/reflect.go.

Why?

When this option is enabled, the reflection service will tolerate the absence of certain file descriptors. This means that if a file descriptor is missing, the reflection service will still attempt to provide information about available services and methods, albeit potentially incomplete.

For context as to why we want this fix, we are experiencing similar issues in k6 using grpc server reflection to the issues reported by grpcurl in this issue: fullstorydev/grpcurl#453. We noted after grpcurl 1.9.0 was released with the call to AllowMissingFileDescriptors in place the following type of errors were resolved:

Failed to list methods for service "xxx.yyy": Symbol not found: xxx.yyy
caused by: File not found: openapi/v3/annotations.proto

Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my code.
• I have added tests for my changes.
• I have run linter locally (make lint) and all checks pass.
• I have run tests locally (make tests) and all tests pass.
• I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.

Related PR(s)/Issue(s)

[Lordnibbler]

@codebien @joanlopez any chance you can take a look at this small change? Thank you!

[Lordnibbler]

@olegbespalov @mstoykov any chance someone can take a look at this small change? thank you so much! :)

[olegbespalov]

Looks good to me 👍 Thanks for your contribution!

[Lordnibbler]

Thanks @olegbespalov - can you help me to get a second review? I also saw what looked like a transient failure in the windows-based codecov github action, but I was not able to re-trigger it. I rebased the branch and pushed, but it did not trigger again.

[olegbespalov]

@Lordnibbler, it might be some flaky test 😢

So far, I believe all is good 👍 Let's wait for the second reviewer. Luckily, it will be merged after the k6 v0.53 release, which is already formed.

[Lordnibbler]

@olegbespalov thank you! is there anyone else to ping for second review, or are the folks I tagged already sufficient?

[olegbespalov]

@Lordnibbler, there is no need for pinging; we're aware of it, but as I said, release v0.53 is coming, so that's why the team is busy with other things. No worries, we return to you as soon as possible 😉

[Lordnibbler]

Thank you! :)

[codebien]

As @olegbespalov said, this is not expected to be included in v0.53. So, if you need it, you have to use the master branch after we merge this pull request.