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 definition of Has for proto3 scalars is whether the value is non-zero.
Change-Id: I6aee92dd518d63a66515ad35da84b2be7aa22527
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/150320
Reviewed-by: Herbie Ong <herbie@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@google.com>
Add more extensive tests to ensure that the reflective API works for both
enums and messages. We tests the situation where a v2 message has dependencies
on v1 messages and vice versa.
Change-Id: Ib85d465711728ae13743bea700b678d9dda5e85c
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/149758
Reviewed-by: Herbie Ong <herbie@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>
Implement support for extension fields for messages that use the v1
data structures for extensions. The legacyExtensionFields type wraps a
v1 map to implement the v2 protoreflect.KnownFields interface.
Working on this change revealed a bug in the dynamic construction of
message types for protobuf messages that had cyclic dependencies (e.g.,
message Foo has a sub-field of message Bar, and Bar has a sub-field of Foo).
In such a situation, a deadlock occurs because initialization code depends on
the very initialization code that is currently running. To break these cycles,
we make some systematic changes listed in the following paragraphs.
Generally speaking, we separate the logic for construction and wrapping,
where constuction does not recursively rely on dependencies,
while wrapping may recursively inspect dependencies.
Promote the MessageType.MessageOf method as a standalone MessageOf function
that dynamically finds the proper *MessageType to use. We make it such that
MessageType only supports two forms of messages types:
* Those that fully implement the v2 API.
* Those that do not implement the v2 API at all.
This removes support for the hybrid form that was exploited by message_test.go
In impl/message_test.go, switch each message to look more like how future
generated messages will look like. This is done in reaction to the fact that
MessageType.MessageOf no longer exists.
In value/{map,vector}.go, fix Unwrap to return a pointer since the underlying
reflect.Value is addressable reference value, not a pointer value.
In value/convert.go, split the logic apart so that obtaining a v2 type and
wrapping a type as v2 are distinct operations. Wrapping requires further
initialization than simply creating the initial message type, and calling it
during initial construction would lead to a deadlock.
In protoreflect/go_type.go, we switch back to a lazy initialization of GoType
to avoid a deadlock since the user-provided fn may rely on the fact that
prototype.GoMessage returned.
Change-Id: I5dea00e36fe1a9899bd2ac0aed2c8e51d5d87420
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/148826
Reviewed-by: Herbie Ong <herbie@google.com>
Dynamically generate functions for handling message and enum fields,
regardless of whether they are of the v1 or v2 forms.
If a v1 message is encountered, it is automatically wrapped such that it
implements the v2 interface.
Change-Id: I457bc5286892e8fc00a61da7062dd33058daafd5
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/143837
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Add a method to fetch descriptor options. Since options are proto
messages (e.g., google.protobuf.FieldOptions), and proto message
packages depend on the protoreflect package, returning the actual option
type would cause a dependency cycle. Instead, we return an interface
value which can be type asserted to the appropriate concrete type.
Add options support to the prototype package.
Some of the prototype constructors included fields (such as
Field.IsPacked) which represent information from the options
(such as google.protobuf.FieldOptions.packed). To avoid confusion about
the canonical source of information, drop these fields in favor of the
options.
Drop the unimplemented Descriptor.DescriptorOptionsProto.
Change-Id: I66579b6a7d10d99eb6977402a247306a78913e74
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/144277
Reviewed-by: Joe Tsai <thebrokentoaster@gmail.com>
Dynamically generate functions for handling individual fields within an oneof.
This implementation uses Go reflection to interact with the currently generated
approach, which uses an interface that can only be set by a limited set of
wrapper structs.
Change-Id: Ic848df922d6547411a15c4a20bfbbcae362da5c0
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/142895
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Remove List from KnownFields, UnknownFields, ExtensionFieldTypes, and Map.
Rationale:
* Each of those interfaces already have a Range method, which provides
a superset of the functionality of List. Furthermore, Range is more expressive
as it allows you to terminate iteration and provides both keys and values.
* List must always allocate a slice and populates it.
* Range is allocation free in some cases. For example, if you simply wanted to
iterate over all the populated fields to clear them, there is no need for a
closure, so a static version of the function can be directly referenced
(i.e., there is no need to create a stub function header that references the
closed-over variables).
* In the cases where a closure is needed, the allocation cost is O(1) since
there are a finite number of variables being closed over.
* In highly performance sensitive cases, the closured function could close over
a struct, such that the function and struct are stored in a sync.Pool when not
in use. For example:
type MapLister struct {
Entries []struct{K MapKey; V Value}
f func(MapKey, Value) true
}
func (m *MapLister) Ranger() func(MapKey, Value) bool {
if m.f != nil {
m.f = func(k MapKey, v Value) bool {
m.Entries = append(m.Entries, ...)
return true
}
}
m.Entries = m.Entries[:0]
return m.f
}
The main benefit of List is the ease of use:
for _, num := range knownFields.List() {
...
}
as opposed to:
knownFields.Range(func(n FieldNumber, v Value) bool {
...
return true
})
However, this is a marginal benefit.
Thus, remove List as it mostly inferior to Range.
Change-Id: I25586c6ea07a4706072ba06b1cf25cb6efb5e8a7
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/142888
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Generate functions for wrapping map[K]V to implement protoreflect.Map.
This implementation uses Go reflection instead to provide a single implementation
that can handle all Go map types.
Change-Id: Idcb8069ef836614a88e5df12ef7c5044e8aa3dea
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/142778
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Generate functions for wrapping []T to implement protoreflect.Vector.
This implementation uses Go reflection instead to provide a single implementation
that can handle all Go slice types.
The test harness was greatly expanded to be able to test vectors (in addition
to messages and maps in the near future).
Change-Id: I0106c175f84a1e7e0a0a5b0e02e2489b70b0d177
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/135339
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
Given a pointer to a Go struct (that is well-formed according to the v1
struct field layout), wrap the type such that it implements the v2
protoreflect.Message interface.
Change-Id: I5987cad0d22e53970c613cdbbb1cfd4210897f69
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/138897
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
This change was created by running:
git ls-files | xargs sed -i "s|google.golang.org/proto|github.com/golang/protobuf/v2|g"
This change is *not* an endorsement of "github.com/golang/protobuf/v2" as the
final import path when the v2 API is eventually released as stable.
We continue to reserve the right to make breaking changes as we see fit.
This change enables us to host the v2 API on a repository that is go-gettable
(since go.googlesource.com is not a known host by the "go get" tool;
and google.golang.org/proto was just a stub URL that is not currently served).
Thus, we can start work on a forked version of the v1 API that explores
what it would take to implement v1 in terms of v2 in a backwards compatible way.
Change-Id: Ia3ebc41ac4238af62ee140200d3158b53ac9ec48
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/136736
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
This provides an implementation of the has, get, set, clear methods for each
field in a message. The approach taken here is similar to the table-driven
implementation in the current v1 proto package.
The pointer_reflect.go and pointer_unsafe.go files are a simplified version of
the same files in the v1 implementation. They provide a pointer abstraction
that enables a high-efficiency approach in a non-purego environment.
The unsafe fast-path is not implemented in this commit.
This commit only implements the accessor methods for scalars using pure
Go reflection.
Change-Id: Icdf707e9d4e3385e55434f93b30a341a7680ae11
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/135136
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>
