Re: [protobuf] Re: Question about json_name and protoc
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:56 PM Zellyn wrote: > Yeah, it's precisely the fact that protoc populates that field regardless > of whether it was specified that I consider bad. > https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/issues/5587 > Doh, I apparently misread your original email, thinking you were talking about the generated Go code only. FWIW, I think most decoders (for the runtimes that support JSON encoding) support either: they first look for a matching name per JSON name, and, if no field is found, they fall back to looking for a matching proto name. Perhaps that may help if you are trying to, for eaxmple, bridge a pre-3.0 custom JSON encoding with proto3 canonical JSON encoding (just kind of guessing at your possible reason for needing this distinction). If that is the motivation, you might also watch out for the custom JSON encoding for well-known types and how one-ofs are handled (e.g. one-of names never appear in JSON; their constituents are flattened into the enclosing message). > > I'm probably way too late to get it fixed, though: it looks like 3.1.0 > introduced that behavior :-( > > Zellyn > > On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 12:23:17 PM UTC-5, Josh Humphries wrote: >> >> Hey, Zellyn, >> I don't think it's possible for protoc-gen-go to do what you're asking. >> IIRC, protoc itself always populates this field in the field descriptor. So >> I don't think a plugin can actually make this distinction -- at least not >> without a change to protoc. And the downside to a change to protoc is that >> it would require all code-gen plugins (and/or runtime libraries that >> implement the JSON encoding) to have redundant logic for computing the >> canonical JSON name from the proto name. >> >> >> *Josh Humphries* >> jh...@bluegosling.com >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:10 AM Zellyn wrote: >> >>> A quick followup: a reason that including a json name for every field in >>> the descriptor is bad: it makes it impossible to tell whether an explicit >>> json_name was specified or not. So it would be impossible to give jsonpb a >>> mode (which it needs, imho) where it uses the protobuf field names as-is, >>> unless an explicit json_name was specified. >>> >>> Or am I understanding it wrong? >>> >>> Zellyn >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 12:47:31 PM UTC-5, Zellyn wrote: Hey folks, We're trying to update the version of protoc we use for compiling our Go protobufs. It appears that at some point between 3.0.0 and 3.6.0, protoc started populating the `json_name` field option for *every* field, whether the option was specified or not. Is that expected? If so, could anyone help me track down the commit that did it? Thanks, Zellyn >>> -- >>> 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 protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- > 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [protobuf] Re: Question about json_name and protoc
Yeah, it's precisely the fact that protoc populates that field regardless of whether it was specified that I consider bad. https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/issues/5587 I'm probably way too late to get it fixed, though: it looks like 3.1.0 introduced that behavior :-( Zellyn On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 12:23:17 PM UTC-5, Josh Humphries wrote: > > Hey, Zellyn, > I don't think it's possible for protoc-gen-go to do what you're asking. > IIRC, protoc itself always populates this field in the field descriptor. So > I don't think a plugin can actually make this distinction -- at least not > without a change to protoc. And the downside to a change to protoc is that > it would require all code-gen plugins (and/or runtime libraries that > implement the JSON encoding) to have redundant logic for computing the > canonical JSON name from the proto name. > > > *Josh Humphries* > jh...@bluegosling.com > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:10 AM Zellyn > > wrote: > >> A quick followup: a reason that including a json name for every field in >> the descriptor is bad: it makes it impossible to tell whether an explicit >> json_name was specified or not. So it would be impossible to give jsonpb a >> mode (which it needs, imho) where it uses the protobuf field names as-is, >> unless an explicit json_name was specified. >> >> Or am I understanding it wrong? >> >> Zellyn >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 12:47:31 PM UTC-5, Zellyn wrote: >>> >>> Hey folks, >>> >>> We're trying to update the version of protoc we use for compiling our Go >>> protobufs. It appears that at some point between 3.0.0 and 3.6.0, protoc >>> started populating the `json_name` field option for *every* field, >>> whether the option was specified or not. Is that expected? If so, could >>> anyone help me track down the commit that did it? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Zellyn >>> >> -- >> 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 protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com . >> To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com >> . >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [protobuf] Re: Question about json_name and protoc
Hey, Zellyn, I don't think it's possible for protoc-gen-go to do what you're asking. IIRC, protoc itself always populates this field in the field descriptor. So I don't think a plugin can actually make this distinction -- at least not without a change to protoc. And the downside to a change to protoc is that it would require all code-gen plugins (and/or runtime libraries that implement the JSON encoding) to have redundant logic for computing the canonical JSON name from the proto name. *Josh Humphries* jh...@bluegosling.com On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:10 AM Zellyn wrote: > A quick followup: a reason that including a json name for every field in > the descriptor is bad: it makes it impossible to tell whether an explicit > json_name was specified or not. So it would be impossible to give jsonpb a > mode (which it needs, imho) where it uses the protobuf field names as-is, > unless an explicit json_name was specified. > > Or am I understanding it wrong? > > Zellyn > > > On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 12:47:31 PM UTC-5, Zellyn wrote: >> >> Hey folks, >> >> We're trying to update the version of protoc we use for compiling our Go >> protobufs. It appears that at some point between 3.0.0 and 3.6.0, protoc >> started populating the `json_name` field option for *every* field, >> whether the option was specified or not. Is that expected? If so, could >> anyone help me track down the commit that did it? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Zellyn >> > -- > 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[protobuf] Re: Question about json_name and protoc
A quick followup: a reason that including a json name for every field in the descriptor is bad: it makes it impossible to tell whether an explicit json_name was specified or not. So it would be impossible to give jsonpb a mode (which it needs, imho) where it uses the protobuf field names as-is, unless an explicit json_name was specified. Or am I understanding it wrong? Zellyn On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 12:47:31 PM UTC-5, Zellyn wrote: > > Hey folks, > > We're trying to update the version of protoc we use for compiling our Go > protobufs. It appears that at some point between 3.0.0 and 3.6.0, protoc > started populating the `json_name` field option for *every* field, > whether the option was specified or not. Is that expected? If so, could > anyone help me track down the commit that did it? > > Thanks, > > Zellyn > -- 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[protobuf] Roadmap to release protobuf-java 3.6.2
Hi, In [0] I was wondering about a release (3.6.1.3) cut from the release branch but noticed no patch release had ever been published to maven central. Is there already a roadmap defined for releasing protobuf-java-3.6.2 ? Regards, Timothee [0] https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/issues/5582 -- 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
