Hi Adam,

OK, but would I need to know the fields in the message ahead of time? That 
is what I am trying to avoid.
The paths of the nested messages are in a table, such as

"healthreport/os/version", 3

So the healthreport variable is allocated, and it contains a component 
called os, which itself contains a field called version.

So I am trying to write a generic enum function, that can descend the 
parent, and guided by the path info, can resolve the value that needs to be 
stored there, but if I am to traverse the entire tree manually, how does 
the reflection API help?
On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 14:21:59 UTC-4 [email protected] wrote:

> I think the reason this is getting tricky is because you're trying to 
> traverse the descriptors first and then look at the message tree afterward. 
> I would expect it to be much easier if you traverse the message and look at 
> the descriptors at the same time.
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:58 AM J G <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> That works for the first iteration, but I descend the tree like so: 
>>
>> bool enumpb( const char * pszpath, ENUMPROTOPROC f, const 
>> google::protobuf::Descriptor * d, uintptr_t param ) {
>>
>>     std::string path = pszpath;
>>
>>     for ( int i = 0; i < d->field_count(); i++ ) {
>>
>>         auto field = d->field( i );
>>
>>         std::string localpath = pszpath;
>>
>>         if ( 0 != strcmp( "component", field->name().c_str() ) ) {
>>
>>             localpath.append( field->name() );
>>
>>         }
>>
>>         if ( ( ! localpath.empty() ) && ( '/' != localpath.back() ) ) {
>>
>>             if ( f && ! f( field, localpath.c_str(), param ) ) {
>>
>>                 return false;
>>
>>             }
>>
>>         }
>>
>>         auto mt = field->message_type();
>>
>>         if ( ! mt ) {
>>
>>             continue;
>>
>>         } else if ( 0 != strcmp( d->full_name().c_str(), 
>> mt->full_name().c_str() ) ) {
>>
>>             std::string localpath2 = localpath;
>>
>>             if ( ( ! localpath.empty() ) && ( '/' != localpath.back() ) ) 
>> {
>>
>>                 localpath2.append( "/" );
>>
>>             }
>>
>>             if ( ! enumpb( hp, report, localpath2.c_str(), f, mt, param ) 
>> ) {
>>
>>                 return false;
>>
>>             }
>>
>>         } else {
>>
>> //            printf( "Skipping circular %s" EOL, d->full_name().c_str() 
>> );
>>
>>         }
>>
>>     }
>>
>>     return true;
>>
>> }
>>
>> So I start the traversal like this:
>>
>> auto d = report->GetDescriptor();
>>
>> enumpb( "", f, d, param );
>>
>> And it goes down the variable, visiting each leaf and nested child 
>> variable, but I can't address each nested child directly that way, can I?
>> The mt variable does hold the descriptor for each nested variable at some 
>> point, but I don't know how I'd derive the variable's instance from it.
>>
>> On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 13:47:15 UTC-4 [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> I think the easiest thing would be that wherever you're now storing a 
>>> google::protobuf::FieldDescriptor*, you can also store a 
>>> google::protobuf::Message* pointing to the parent message.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:41 AM J G <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the HealthReport variable is the parent, and it contains a 
>>>> HardwareComponent variable, but I am enumerating the from the parent, 
>>>> meaning I am trying to not hard-code the structure of the contained items.
>>>>
>>>> So how would I obtain a pointer to the message for each leaf without 
>>>> hard-coding the member names in there?
>>>>
>>>> I am able to figure out what value I want to set in each leaf by a map 
>>>> I have that uses the field's path to match it to the value I want to store.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 13:33:11 UTC-4 [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So is it correct that HealthReport is the top-level message type and 
>>>>> HardwareComponent is nested somewhere within that? I think what you're 
>>>>> trying to do is doable, but when you call reflection->SetString(), you 
>>>>> have 
>>>>> to pass the immediate parent message containing the field, not the 
>>>>> top-level message. You don't need to save the descriptor for each leaf, 
>>>>> but 
>>>>> you do need to save a pointer to the message containing each leaf.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:17 AM J G <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi again Adam, and thank you for taking the time to help me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I haven't explained what I am trying to do properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a protobuf variable, which itself is composed of more nested 
>>>>>> variables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am enumerating the fields of the variable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where the item is a leaf, the field is a simple c-like type (int, 
>>>>>> bool, string, etc)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where the item itself has fields, it is an agglomerate type and it is 
>>>>>> descended recursively.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My aim is to set each leaf programmatically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So as I traverse the arborescance, I am collecting the field 
>>>>>> definitions for the leafs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So later, I am addressing the variable again, but trying to set one 
>>>>>> of its leafs by the field definition I saved. Do I also have to save the 
>>>>>> descriptor for each leaf?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can what I want to do be done?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 11:52:00 UTC-4 [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It looks to me like r->report points to a vafmsg.HealthReport but 
>>>>>>> the field descriptor refers to a field in another message 
>>>>>>> (vafmsg.HardwareComponent).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 7:42 AM J G <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Adam,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, I understand, so I've tried this, but I get an error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void my_set_value( class healthreport * r, const char * 
>>>>>>>> defaultvalue, const google::protobuf::FieldDescriptor * descriptor ) {
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     auto reflection = r->report->GetReflection();
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     switch( descriptor->type() ) {
>>>>>>>>         case google::protobuf::FieldDescriptor::TYPE_STRING: {
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 printf( "REQUESTED TYPE: STRING" EOL );
>>>>>>>>                 std::string s = defaultvalue;
>>>>>>>>                 reflection->SetString( r->report, descriptor, s );
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             }
>>>>>>>>             break;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         default:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             printf( "REQUESTED TYPE %d NOT HANDLED" EOL, 
>>>>>>>> descriptor->type() );
>>>>>>>>             break;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> Running the above produces the following output:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> REQUESTED TYPE: STRING
>>>>>>>> [libprotobuf FATAL 
>>>>>>>> /var/tmp/portage/dev-libs/protobuf-3.15.8/work/protobuf-3.15.8/src/google/protobuf/generated_message_reflection.cc:111]
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> Protocol Buffer reflection usage error:
>>>>>>>>   Method      : google::protobuf::Reflection::SetString
>>>>>>>>   Message type: vafmsg.HealthReport
>>>>>>>>   Field       : vafmsg.HardwareComponent.hardware_interface
>>>>>>>>   Problem     : Field does not match message type.
>>>>>>>> terminate called after throwing an instance of 
>>>>>>>> 'google::protobuf::FatalException'
>>>>>>>>   what():  Protocol Buffer reflection usage error:
>>>>>>>>   Method      : google::protobuf::Reflection::SetString
>>>>>>>>   Message type: vafmsg.HealthReport
>>>>>>>>   Field       : vafmsg.HardwareComponent.hardware_interface
>>>>>>>>   Problem     : Field does not match message type.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is the proto definition of the variable triggering the 
>>>>>>>> exception:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> message HardwareComponent { 
>>>>>>>>     optional Component component = 1;
>>>>>>>>     repeated DiscreteValue temp = 2;
>>>>>>>>     optional string hardware_interface = 3;
>>>>>>>>     optional uint32 remaining_life = 4;
>>>>>>>>     optional uint32 total_hours = 5;
>>>>>>>>     optional EnergyInfo energy = 6;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the type really IS string, yet an exception is triggered...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What am I doing wrong?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 17:56:57 UTC-4 [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Each descriptor describes part of the schema (e.g. a message type, 
>>>>>>>>> enum type, etc.) but is unrelated to any particular instance of it. 
>>>>>>>>> As a 
>>>>>>>>> result, if you have a descriptor by itself then you can't really 
>>>>>>>>> modify 
>>>>>>>>> anything because you separately need an instance of the thing you 
>>>>>>>>> want to 
>>>>>>>>> modify. The way to programmatically modify a message is to use the 
>>>>>>>>> Reflection 
>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/blob/9d9d8ee18dedfb18371031cd299d1d282ddf707f/src/google/protobuf/message.h#L452>
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> API. You can use Reflection::ListFields() to get a list of all the 
>>>>>>>>> fields 
>>>>>>>>> that are set on the message and then there are Reflection::Get* and 
>>>>>>>>> Reflection::Set* methods to get and set particular fields.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 9:11 AM J G <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've got some code that lets me recursively walk a protobuf 
>>>>>>>>>> variable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That part works, I can enumerate the characteristics of a 
>>>>>>>>>> variable, but the pointers/references returned by the API are const.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My question is: From a variable's Descriptor or FieldDescriptor, 
>>>>>>>>>> is it possible to get a non-const pointer/reference to the field to 
>>>>>>>>>> be able 
>>>>>>>>>> to modify it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's my (simplified) code so far:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> void enumpb(  const google::protobuf::Descriptor * d ) {
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     for ( int i = 0; i < d->field_count(); i++ ) {
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         auto field = d->field( i );
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         // Modify variable code here
>>>>>>>>>>         [...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         auto mt = field->message_type();
>>>>>>>>>>         if ( ! mt ) {
>>>>>>>>>>             continue;
>>>>>>>>>>         } else if ( 0 != strcmp( d->full_name().c_str(), 
>>>>>>>>>> mt->full_name().c_str() ) ) {
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>             enumpb( mt ) ;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     return true;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/dcf6bb53-24ce-4404-ab71-0fe3a94adc40n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/dcf6bb53-24ce-4404-ab71-0fe3a94adc40n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/7ef6e77e-8635-4b16-b570-b80f75d207d9n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/7ef6e77e-8635-4b16-b570-b80f75d207d9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/39fd7a89-426a-453d-9482-4cb3e3658da0n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/39fd7a89-426a-453d-9482-4cb3e3658da0n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/764459e6-6f37-42aa-869c-0f8405aa13c6n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>  
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/764459e6-6f37-42aa-869c-0f8405aa13c6n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/3d9ed924-341b-43cf-8359-c91a93d1916dn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/3d9ed924-341b-43cf-8359-c91a93d1916dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/9c617cbc-f632-46a3-a1ac-c95c7fe6d2e2n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to