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 wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> Yes, the HealthReport variable is the parent, and
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
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
Here's how you could set that nested field in your example (this code is
untested so may not work exactly, but should be pretty close):
const FieldDescriptor* health_report_field =
parent.GetDescriptor()->FindFieldByName("healthreport");
Message* health_report =
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
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
Hello again, Adam,
If I understand you correctly, the key would be to obtain the
mutable-message (by name) for the child from the parent as I descend the
tree.
It think that would work!
Thank you very much for your light, I'm a newbie to protobuf and this
demystifies part of it. I'll see if I
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
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
Hi,
I was just wondering why when no syntax declaration is found in a protobuf
file the warning is put straight on to the std::err using GOOGLE_LOG and
not able to be handled using io::ErrorCollector.AddWarning in
compiler::Parser::Parse.
Thanks,
James.
--
You received this message because
Firebase is using: protobuf-javalite:3.14.0
On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:12:02 PM UTC-5 Derek Perez wrote:
> Can you tell what version of protobuf firebase is pulling in? I wonder if
> we can get one or the other updated?
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 2:53 PM 'Matthew Perkins' via Protocol
I did. But it's not a version number issue, its a lite vs full issue.
On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:27:18 PM UTC-5 Derek Perez wrote:
> Have you tried reaching out to firebase to see if they can release a
> version w/ updated deps? They are pretty far behind.
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:21
Makes sense. Thanks for the assistance.
On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:33:10 PM UTC-5 Derek Perez wrote:
> Ah right, I see.
>
> OK, yeah your best option is to get the other dependency to move to lite
> or drop it. If this is a mobile project you'll definitely wanna stay with
> lite for
Ah right, I see.
OK, yeah your best option is to get the other dependency to move to lite or
drop it. If this is a mobile project you'll definitely wanna stay with lite
for performance reasons.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:29 PM 'Matthew Perkins' via Protocol Buffers <
protobuf@googlegroups.com>
Hi guys,
We have an android app that we're attempting to use Firebase in, but a
dependency we use is using protobuf-java causing conflicts with Firebase
and it's inclusion of protobuf-javalite.
We've found some suggestions but nothing really consistent.
We can get the application to build and
Have you tried reaching out to firebase to see if they can release a
version w/ updated deps? They are pretty far behind.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:21 PM 'Matthew Perkins' via Protocol Buffers <
protobuf@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Attached is the build error I'm encountering
>
> On Tuesday, June
Can you tell what version of protobuf firebase is pulling in? I wonder if
we can get one or the other updated?
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 2:53 PM 'Matthew Perkins' via Protocol Buffers <
protobuf@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> We have an android app that we're attempting to use Firebase
Attached is the build error I'm encountering
On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:15:44 PM UTC-5 Matthew Perkins wrote:
> Firebase is using: protobuf-javalite:3.14.0
>
> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:12:02 PM UTC-5 Derek Perez wrote:
>
>> Can you tell what version of protobuf firebase is pulling in?
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() ) {
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 wrote:
> Hello Adam,
>
> OK, I understand, so I've tried this, but I get an error.
>
> void my_set_value(
20 matches
Mail list logo
