Add router config validate subcommand

[andrewmcgivery]

Add router config validate subcommand to allow validation of a Router config file without fully starting up the Router.

./router config validate <path-to-config-file.yaml>

Note: Didn't see any examples of how to directly unit test commands.. but I tested manually! 😅

---

Checklist

Complete the checklist (and note appropriate exceptions) before the PR is marked ready-for-review.

• Changes are compatible¹
• Documentation² completed
• Performance impact assessed and acceptable
• Tests added and passing³
  • Unit Tests
  • Integration Tests
  • Manual Tests

Exceptions

Note any exceptions here

Notes

Footnotes

1. It may be appropriate to bring upcoming changes to the attention of other (impacted) groups. Please endeavour to do this before seeking PR approval. The mechanism for doing this will vary considerably, so use your judgement as to how and when to do this. ↩

2. Configuration is an important part of many changes. Where applicable please try to document configuration examples. ↩

3. Tick whichever testing boxes are applicable. If you are adding Manual Tests, please document the manual testing (extensively) in the Exceptions. ↩

[svc-apollo-docs]

❌ Docs Preview Failed

Error

HttpError: Resource not accessible by personal access token - https://docs.github.com/rest/commits/statuses#create-a-commit-status

[bnjjj]

We also have other validation specific to plugins (not schema validation but the content of these configurations)

[bnjjj]

I mean that's ok but we should at least document what it clearly does

[andrewmcgivery]

Sorry, not understanding your comment 😓

Are you saying that this code does more than just validate the Router config file?

[bnjjj]

I'm just saying that on plugins we have other config validations. For example here which validate that the config is logically correct, not only syntactically. So what I would like to have is to document that your new config validate will only validate it's syntactically correct regarding the json schema. That's all

[andrewmcgivery]

Updated!

[theJC]

Indeed is anxiously awaiting for this support to be added to improve our pipelines and shift left bad config as much as possible.

Based on the feedback, I believe there is just a documentation concern about indicating the scope of what it can validate and what it cannot. Any chance we can get this over the finish line with just a doc update?

[bnjjj]

@andrewmcgivery I added details on my comment. Let me know if you need more. Otherwise once it's documented it looks good to me