Querying for the parent file that contains a descriptor declaration
is a common enough operation to warrant its own first-class method.
Change-Id: I2f41e5126a5b465df23897904a6513dd3ed8dd92
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/protobuf/+/176777
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
CL/172238 added equivalent methods without the Type suffix,
while keeping the old methods.
CL/172582 updates the v1 codebase to use the new methods.
This CL removes the methods with the Type suffix.
Change-Id: Iaaaa4fff11cac1694735657db2e5fd7cadc90afe
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/protobuf/+/173138
Reviewed-by: Herbie Ong <herbie@google.com>
The protobuf type system uses the word "descriptor" instead of "type".
We should avoid the "type" verbage when we aren't talking about Go types.
The old names are temporarily kept around for compatibility reasons.
Change-Id: Icc99c913528ead011f7a74aa8399d9c5ec6dc56e
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/protobuf/+/172238
Reviewed-by: Herbie Ong <herbie@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
These properties of descriptors are currently missing and makes it impossible
to convert a FileDescriptorProto into one of the structured Go representations
and convert it back to a proto message without loss of information.
Furthermore, ReservedRanges and ReservedNames has semantic importance
to text serialization.
Change-Id: Ic33c30020ad51912b143156b95f47a4fb8da3503
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/153019
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Considerable thought was given to whether a seperate ExtensionRanges interface
should be made that encapsulates FieldNumbers with an Options method.
However, I decided against this design for the following reasons:
* Extension ranges share syntax with reserved numbers and fields.
Why is extension ranges so special that it can have options, while the other
two currently do not? How do we know that those other two won't grow options
in the future? If they do, then those APIs can be expanded in the same way as
how extension range options is being expanded here today.
* Extension range options stand out like a sore thumb compared to the other
eight options. The other options correspond with a named declaration and have
a full protobuf name that they are associated with. Extension range options
is the only options that is not correlated with a full name.
* Extension range options are an extremely rarely used feature and
it seems unfortunate complicating the common case with additional structure.
Change-Id: Ib284a0b798c57dc264febe304692eee5b9c8e91b
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/153018
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Custom descriptor types would want to benefit from descriptor formatting.
As such, move the logic out from prototype into an internal package for
the benefit of usages outside the prototype package.
Change-Id: I4bb2144221e656aa36909d33a77189fe084f700b
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/152777
Reviewed-by: Herbie Ong <herbie@google.com>
