The conformance.proto test suite includes this section: int32 fieldname1 = 401; int32 field_name2 = 402; int32 _field_name3 = 403; int32 field__name4_ = 404; int32 field0name5 = 405; int32 field_0_name6 = 406; int32 fieldName7 = 407; int32 FieldName8 = 408; int32 field_Name9 = 409; int32 Field_Name10 = 410; int32 FIELD_NAME11 = 411; int32 FIELD_name12 = 412;
It would be interesting to see a full set of conformance examples that code these names in a FieldMask. In particular, JSON FieldMask encoding expects JSON-format names which cannot be correctly converted back to these proto-format names. Cheers, Tim P.S. I think using JSON-format names in FieldMask was a mistake; practically speaking, generated code has to embed raw proto-format names anyway, so JSON FieldMask could have carried proto-format names and you would have avoided an entire class of round-trip bugs. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
