Most usages of New actually prefer to interact with the reflective view
rather than the native Go type. Thus, change New to return that instead.
This parallels reflect.New, which returns the reflective view
(i.e., reflect.Value) instead of native type (i.e., interface{}).
We make the equivalent change to KnownFields.NewMessage, List.NewMessage,
and Map.NewMessage for consistency.
Since this is a subtle change where the type system will not always
catch the changed type, this change was made by both changing the type
and renaming the function to NewXXX and manually looking at every usage
of the the function to ensure that the usage correctly operates
on either the native Go type or the reflective view of the type.
After the entire codebase was cleaned up, a rename was performed to convert
NewXXX back to New.
Change-Id: I153fef627b4bf0a427e4039ce0aaec52e20c7950
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/157077
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Remove the Mutable methods from KnownFields, List, and Map, replacing
them with methods which return a new, empty message value without adding
that value to the collection.
The new API is simpler, since it clearly applies only to message values,
and more orthogonal, since it provides a way to create a value without
mutating the collection. This latter point is particularly useful in
map deserialization, where the key may be unknown at the time the value
is deserialized.
Drop the Mutable interface, since it is no longer necessary.
Change-Id: Ic5f3d06a2aa331a5d5cd2b4e670a3dba4a74f77c
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/153278
Reviewed-by: Joe Tsai <thebrokentoaster@gmail.com>
Similar to how generated messages allow you to call Get methods on a
nil pointer, we permit similar functionality when protobuf reflection
is used on a nil pointer.
Change-Id: Ie2f596d39105c191073b42d7d689525c3b715240
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/152021
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Add a Proto prefix before the Unwrap method to reduce the probability that
it would ever conflict with a method of the same name that a
custom implementation of Enum, Message, List, or Map may have.
Change-Id: I628bf8335583f2747ab4589f3e6ff82e4501ce98
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/151817
Reviewed-by: Herbie Ong <herbie@google.com>
Clearly specify that Get on an unpopulated field:
* returns the default value for scalars
* returns a mutable (but empty) List for repeated fields
* returns a mutable (but empty) Map for map fields
* returns an invalid value for message fields
The difference in semantics between List+Maps and Messages is because
protobuf semantics provide no distinction between an unpopulated and empty list
or map. On the other hand, there is a semantic difference between an unpopulated
message and an empty message.
Default values for scalars is trivial to implement with FieldDescriptor.Default.
A mutable, but empty List and Map is easy to implement for known fields since
known fields are generated as a slice or map field in a struct.
Since struct fields are addressable, the implementation can just return a
reference to the slice or map.
Repeated, extension fields are a little more tricky since extension fields
are implemented under the hood as a map[FieldNumber]Extension.
Rather than allocating an empty list in KnownFields.Get upon first retrieval
(which presents a race), delegate the work to ExtensionFieldTypes.Register,
which must occur before any Get operation. Register is not a concurrent-safe
operation, so that is an excellent time to initilize empty lists.
The implementation of extensions will need to be careful that Clear on a repeated
field simply truncates it zero instead of deleting the object.
For unpopulated messages, we return an invalid value, instead of the prior
behavior of returning a typed nil-pointer to the Go type for the message.
The approach is problematic because it assumes that
1) all messages are always implemented on a pointer reciever
2) a typed nil-pointer is an appropriate "read-only, but empty" message
These assumptions are not true of all message types (e.g., dynamic messages).
Change-Id: Ie96e6744c890308d9de738b6cf01d3b19e7e7c6a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/150319
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
The terminology Vector does not occur in protobuf documentation at all,
so we should rename the Go use of the term to something more recognizable.
As such, all instances that match the regexp "[Vv]ect(or)?" were replaced.
The C++ documentation uses the term "Repeated", which is a reasonable name.
However, the term became overloaded in 2014, when maps were added as a feature
and implementated under the hood as repeated fields. This is confusing as it
means "repeated" could either refer to repeated fields proper (i.e., explicitly
marked with the "repeated" label in the proto file) or map fields. In the case
of the C++ reflective API, this is not a problem since repeated fields proper
and map fields are interacted with through the same RepeatedField type.
In Go, we do not use a single type to handle both types of repeated fields:
1) We are coming up with the Go protobuf reflection API for the first time
and so do not need to piggy-back on the repeated fields API to remain backwards
compatible since no former usages of Go protobuf reflection exists.
2) Map fields are commonly represented in Go as the Go map type, which do not
preserve ordering information. As such it is fundamentally impossible to present
an unordered map as a consistently ordered list. Thus, Go needs two different
interfaces for lists and maps.
Given the above situation, "Repeated" is not a great term to use since it
refers to two different things (when we only want one of the meanings).
To distinguish between the two, we'll use the terms "List" and "Map" instead.
There is some precedence for the term "List" in the protobuf codebase
(e.g., "getRepeatedInt32List").
Change-Id: Iddcdb6b78e1e60c14fa4ca213c15f45e214b967b
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/149657
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
