The wire representation of the contents of an Any is a `bytes` field
containing the the wire encoding of the contained message. The in-memory
representation is just these bytes.
The wire (un)marshaler has no special handling for Any values, and
happily accepts whatever bytes are present.
The text and JSON marshalers will unmarshal the bytes in an Any,
and the unmarshalers will marshal the Any to produce the in-memory
representation. This makes them stricter than the wire (un)marshaler:
Marshaling an Any which contains invalid data to text/JSON fails, while
marshaling it to wire format does not. This does make some sense, since
the Any already contains wire-format data; validation is performed at an
earlier time when producing that data.
This change brings the text and JSON (un)marshal functions a bit more
into alignment with the wire format by never performing checks for
required fields on the contents of an Any.
This has the advantage of consistently performing checks for required
fields exactly once per marshal/unmarshal operation, and over the same
data no matter which encoding is used. It also eliminates the one case
where a required field check is considered "non-fatal", generating an
error but not terminating the (un)marshal operation.
Change-Id: I70c62419d37ea0a07cb73c3ee2d26c0b0bec724b
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/protobuf/+/182982
Reviewed-by: Herbie Ong <herbie@google.com>
The text and JSON encodings for the google.protobuf.Any well-known type
require a call to proto.Unmarshal. Plumb through the resolver from the
UnmarshalOptions.
Change-Id: Iccc1a9d56acd9dd214f2b289216bd50acc2ef074
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/protobuf/+/182980
Reviewed-by: Herbie Ong <herbie@google.com>
Added API:
Message.Len
Message.Range
Message.Has
Message.Clear
Message.Get
Message.Set
Message.Mutable
Message.NewMessage
Message.WhichOneof
Message.GetUnknown
Message.SetUnknown
Deprecated API (to be removed in subsequent CL):
Message.KnownFields
Message.UnknownFields
The primary difference with the new API is that the top-level
Message methods are keyed by FieldDescriptor rather than FieldNumber
with the following semantics:
* For known fields, the FieldDescriptor must exactly match the
field descriptor known by the message.
* For extension fields, the FieldDescriptor must implement ExtensionType,
where ContainingMessage.FullName matches the message name, and
the field number is within the message's extension range.
When setting an extension field, it automatically stores
the extension type information.
* Extension fields are always considered nullable,
implying that repeated extension fields are nullable.
That is, you can distinguish between a unpopulated list and an empty list.
* Message.Get always returns a valid Value even if unpopulated.
The behavior is already well-defined for scalars, but for unpopulated
composite types, it now returns an empty read-only version of it.
Change-Id: Ia120630b4db221aeaaf743d0f64160e1a61a0f61
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/protobuf/+/175458
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Instead of accepting a concrete protoregistry.Types type,
accept an interface that provides the necessary functionality
to perform the serialization.
The advantages of this approach:
* There is no need for complex logic to allow a Parent or custom
Resolver on the protoregistry.Types type.
* Users can pass their own custom resolver implementations directly
to the serialization functions.
* This is a more principled approach to plumbing custom resolvers
than the previous approach of overloading behavior on the concrete
Types type.
The disadvantages of this approach:
* A pointer to a concrete type is 8B, while an interface is 16B.
However, the expansion of the {Marshal,Unmarshal}Options structs
should be a concern solved separately from how to plumb custom resolvers.
* The resolver interfaces as defined today may be insufficient to
provide functionality needed in the future if protobuf expands its
feature set. For example, let's suppose the Any message permits
directly representing a enum by name. This would require the ability
to lookup an enum by name. To support that hypothetical need,
we can document that the serializers type-assert the provided Resolver
to a EnumTypeResolver and use that if possible. There is some loss
of type safety with this approach, but provides a clear path forward.
Change-Id: I81ca80e59335d36be6b43d57ec8e17abfdfa3bad
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/protobuf/+/177044
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Rename each generated protobuf package such that the base of the
Go package path is always equal to the Go package name to follow
proper Go package naming conventions.
The Go package name is derived from the .proto source file name by
replacing ".proto" with "pb" and stripping all underscores.
Change-Id: Iea05d1b5d94b1b2821ae10276ab771bb2df93c0e
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/protobuf/+/177380
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
While it is general convention that the receiver being mutated
is the first argument, the standard library specifically goes against
this convention when it comes to the Unmarshal function.
Switch the ordering of the Unmarshal function to match the Go stdlib.
Change-Id: I893346680233ef9fec7104415a54a0a7ae353378
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/protobuf/+/177258
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Rename encoding/*pb to follow the convention of prefixing package names
with 'proto':
google.golang.org/protobuf/encoding/protojson
google.golang.org/protobuf/encoding/prototext
Move protogen under a compiler/ directory, just in case we ever do add
more compiler-related packages.
google.golang.org/protobuf/compiler/protogen
Change-Id: I31010cb5cabcea8274fffcac468477b58b56e8eb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/protobuf/+/177178
Reviewed-by: Joe Tsai <thebrokentoaster@gmail.com>
