Add support for different password for sentinel nodes and master node

[remibaptistegio]

Describe the feature

Redis supports having a different password for the sentinel nodes and the master node. After some tests, it seems that this is not supported by the client.
After looking at the code, when the RedisURI is created for the master, the RedisURI used to connect to the sentinel node is reused and with it the same password used to connect to the sentinel node

vertx-redis-client/src/main/java/io/vertx/redis/client/impl/RedisSentinelClient.java

Line 251 in 9c704f3

handler.succeed(new RedisURI(uri, rHost.contains(":") ? "[" + rHost + "]" : rHost, rPort));

Do you agree with my analysis ? And do you think that we could define the sentinel password in the endpoint list and use the password property to define the master password ?

Contribution

No response

[Ladicek]

The analysis seems correct. As for the sentinel password, adding a field on RedisSentinelConnectOptions seems best. I'm not sure how we should treat the password in the URI in this case though...

[remibaptistegio]

So you think we should add a new field in the RedisSentinelConnectOptions to specify the sentinel password, that's right ? And what about the master password, we should use the password field already present in the RedisOptions ?

I think that if the password is present in the URI, as it is the sentinel URI, we should use it to connect to sentinel and fallback on the new field if it is not present and if the new field is not empty. Wdyt ?

[Ladicek]

So you think we should add a new field in the RedisSentinelConnectOptions to specify the sentinel password, that's right ? And what about the master password, we should use the password field already present in the RedisOptions ?

Right.

I think that if the password is present in the URI, as it is the sentinel URI, we should use it to connect to sentinel and fallback on the new field if it is not present and if the new field is not empty. Wdyt ?

I'm not sure at the moment, but I think we already do that, and we should probably continue doing what we're already doing, unless there's a good reason.