[4/N] [List API] feat(gateway): expose List API from request summaries

[albertywu]

Summary

Adds the public gateway List RPC and controller for queue-scoped request summaries with queue validation, status filtering, deterministic pagination, and admission-time sorting. Gateway write paths now persist log entries through the summary-aware helper so the read model stays updated.

Test Plan

✅ make fmt && make build && make test && make check-mocks && make e2e-test

Issues

Stack

1. [1/N] [List API] docs(list): define request context read model #310
2. [2/N] [List API] feat(context): add immutable request admission store #302
3. [3/N] [List API] feat(summary): project request logs from admission context #303
4. @ [4/N] [List API] feat(gateway): expose List API from request summaries #304
5. [5/N] [List API] test(e2e): cover gateway List API #305
6. [6/N] [List API] docs(service): document gateway List API read model #306

[behinddwalls]

Few thoughts on this.

1. Group filters vs. pagination

ListRequest is a bit hard to read at a glance — filters, ordering, and pagination sit flat in one message, so it's unclear what's required, what's optional, and what's meant to combine. Grouping by role would make it more self-documenting.

On whether filters should be a generic Filter{key, value} list for extensibility: I'd lean against it. A proto message with named fields already is a typed key/value model — the keys are fields the schema knows. A Filter{key, value} list gives that up: keys move into runtime data, values collapse to strings, and we'd reinvent operators and validation. So I'd keep filters as named typed fields, grouped into a sub-message. (If we ever need open-ended user-composed predicates, the usual path is a single string filter grammar à la AIP-160 — but not yet.)

2. A possible restructure

A starting point:

message ListRequest {
  // Required: the queue to scan (storage partition key).
  string queue = 1;
  // Optional. Absent = whole queue.
  // Present fields AND together; a repeated field ORs within itself.
  ListFilter filter = 2;
  // Optional ordering; unspecified = admission order (FIFO).
  ListSort sort = 3;
  // Optional pagination, independent of filtering.
  Page page = 4;
}

message ListFilter {
  TimeWindow window = 1;          // either bound 0 = unbounded
  repeated string statuses = 2;   // OR-set; empty = all
}

// Half-open [start, end) in Unix epoch ms. 0 = unbounded.
message TimeWindow {
  int64 start_time_ms = 1;
  int64 end_time_ms = 2;
}

message Page {
  int32 size = 1;   // 0 = server default; server may cap
  string token = 2; // opaque continuation (see below)
}

enum ListSort {
  LIST_SORT_UNSPECIFIED  = 0;  // = admission ascending
  LIST_SORT_ADMITTED_ASC = 1;
  LIST_SORT_ADMITTED_DESC = 2;
}

Small things folded in:

• proto3 optional on the time bounds would distinguish "no lower bound" from start_time_ms = 0.
• A oneof could encode any mutually-exclusive filters in the schema rather than in prose.
• I'd suggest dropping the terminal filter: it overlaps statuses, and terminal=true + statuses=[building] is a contradictory request the server then has to define. Terminality is derivable from the status set. Worth keeping the derived terminal bool on the response RequestSummary though — as output it saves clients from hardcoding which statuses are terminal.

3. In-flight requests in the time window

One edge case worth a look: the contract says "lifecycles overlap a time window," but the storage filter (parent PR) is started_at_ms < end AND completed_at_ms > start, and in-flight requests have completed_at_ms = 0. So 0 > start is false whenever start_time_ms > 0 — still-running requests get filtered out, which seems opposite to what a "queue right now" view wants. Treating 0 as open-ended (completed_at_ms = 0 OR completed_at_ms > ?) would fix it, and might argue for allowing an unbounded window. Let me know if I've misread the query.

4. Pagination token — a note and an open question

Embedding the query in the token looks safe: values go through bound ? parameters and sort/order comes from a whitelist switch, so no injection path, and the token carries no entitlements — a tampered one only moves the caller's own cursor within an already-authorized query. Might be worth stating as an invariant: the token can hold position + a query echo, never anything the server treats as permission.

Optional for later: if we ever want forged tokens to be impossible rather than just harmless, we could HMAC-sign the token with a server-side secret. The signature also guarantees integrity, so the token could shrink to position + a query hash instead of echoing the whole query. Cost is key management, so probably a follow-up unless the token needs to carry something sensitive. A length cap before decoding is a cheap safeguard regardless.

Open one, no strong opinion — token or cursor?

• token matches the AIP convention and the internal listPageToken, and signals "opaque, tied to this query, don't introspect" — which fits, since it's position + frozen query and we reject on mismatch. Keeps it distinct from the storage RequestSummaryCursor (the actual position).
• cursor is more familiar to consumers (GraphQL/Relay), but implies a plain reusable pointer, which is at odds with the mismatch rejection. If we preferred it, we'd probably make it a true position-only cursor.

Curious what you think — feels like a judgment call, and it interacts with the HMAC question.

5. Tiny things

• ListSort may trip buf/AIP lint (zero-value naming + unprefixed values) — the LIST_SORT_UNSPECIFIED + prefixed form above should fix it.
• statuses as free strings seems reasonable (mirrors StatusResponse.status), just worth documenting intent for unknown values: today a hard error, but we could treat them as ignored so an older client filtering on a renamed status doesn't break.

Let me know your thoughts?

[sbalabanov]

I can't mentally parse the description :)

[sbalabanov]

plz no timers.
use platform wrappers i.e. https://github.com/uber/submitqueue/blob/main/submitqueue/gateway/controller/land.go#L95

[sbalabanov]

req.Queue == ""
should also be a user error then? But it is not.
we need to design an error classification propagation for gateways/grpc, similar to orchestrator/queue

[sbalabanov]

I suggest to error instead

[sbalabanov]

no need for a pointer

[sbalabanov]

why is this not an error?

[sbalabanov]

nit: can always assign to a set, then after the iteration completes, transform to a sorted list.

[sbalabanov]

could use slices.Equal

[sbalabanov]

user inpuit validation could be extracted into a separate function