Re: [protobuf] cannot get extensions from serialized proto -- please help
You didn't provide a code snippet, so it's hard to say, but I would guess
that you need to provide an ExtensionRegistry and pass that to the parsing
method. (It looks like you are working in Java)
e.g.
ExtensionRegistry extensionRegistry = ExtensionRegistry.newInstance();
YourFileContainerProto.registerAllExtensions(extensionRegistry);
Results r = Results.parseFrom(data, extensionRegistry);
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:39 AM, hp hardi...@gmail.com wrote:
test below is failing..please please help
message Results {
extensions 100 to max
}
message Item1 {
extend Resultes {
repeated Item1 items = 100;
}
}
message Item2 {
extend Resultes {
repeated Item2 items = 100;
}
}
Results.getExtension(items) does not return anything when converted to
and from byte array.. Works fine otherwise
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Protocol Buffers group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comprotobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Protocol Buffers group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
Re: [protobuf] Dealing with Corrupted Protocol Buffers
It will be rather difficult to correct for the error. The point at which the parse fails may not be the point of corruption: e.g., the corruption may be in a byte that is part of a varint, and the continuation bit may be set when it shouldn't. Similarly you could have a corruption in the length delimiter for a string or nested message field. Both could cause you to read more bytes than you should have for that particular field. The encoding is dense enough that the parser may merrily consume more bytes before encountering an error to complain about. You can try to mess with the bytes; you might be able to deal with errors using some assumptions about the serialized data based on your protocol. But in general, and going forward, you should write small messages in a container format that allows for error recovery. Various threads from this searchhttp://groups.google.com/group/protobuf/search?group=protobufq=container+formatqt_g=Search+this+group discuss this issue. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Julius Schorzman juli...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the tip on CodedInputStream Evan! I will explore it and if I get anything out of it will report back my findings for anyone else dealing with this issue. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Evan Jones ev...@mit.edu wrote: On Jan 20, 2011, at 2:48 , julius-schorzman wrote: My question is -- can anything be done to retrieve part of the file? It would be nice to know at which point in the file the problematic message occurred, and then I could crop to that point or do some manual exception -- but unfortunately this exception is very general. I find it hard to believe that a single mis-saved bit makes the whole file worthless. You are correct: your entire data is not worthless, but at the point of the error, you will need some manual intervention to figure out what is going on. It is probably possible to figure out the byte offset where this error occurs. The CodedInputStream tracks some sort of bytesRead counter, I seem to recall. However, this will require you to modify the source. I also find it curious that the source provides no way (that I can tell) to get at any lower level data in the p.b. since whenever I try to do anything with it it throws an exception. Best I can tell I will have to write from scratch my own code to decode the p.b. file. The lowest level tools that are provided is CodedInputStream. But yes, you will effectively have to parse the message yourself. Look at the code that is generated for the mergeFrom method of your message to get an idea for how it works, and you can read the encoding documentation: http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/encoding.html You can definitely figure out what is going on, but it will be a bit of a pain. Good luck, Evan Jones -- http://evanjones.ca/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comprotobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
Re: [protobuf] Problem with accents in python while unpacking a message
Can you provide a small, self-contained reproduction of the program? On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Louhike louh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm using Google Protobuf with python on a project. My problem is I get an error while my program tries to build an instance with the function google.protobuf.text_format.merge() if the message contains accents (“utf-8 can't decode the byte \xe9” with the character 'é' for example). I need to keep the accents but I don’t find a solution to do it. It may seem simple but I’m in an early learning phase of programming and I'm often stuck on little things like that. Any help would be useful. Thanks, Louhike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comprotobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
Re: [protobuf] message forward declaration
There are many things that need to be read from imported .proto files to
determine if the .proto is valid, or to produce correct code. e.g.:
- need to differentiate between enum and message imports
- when referencing a qualified type like foo.bar.Baz.Qux, you need to know
what components are package specifiers, and which are objects. This changes
the forward declaration scheme: if that was package foo.bar; message Bar {
message Qux { } }, the declaration is namespace foo { namespace bar { class
Bar_Qux; } }, whereas maybe Bar is just a namespace, so you should instead
produce namespace foo { namespace bar { namespace Bar { class Qux; } } }
- options like java_multiple_files affects the generated code
- when defining extensions, you need to know whether the extendee accepts
extensions, and what range of extension numbers the extendee allows
To use the .proto, you need to build the imported proto files anyway, so
even if you could capture all of this in a simple forward-declaration-type
scheme, I don't think you would save very much.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:02 AM, George george.georg...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
It looks to me that the generated result of a single proto file
doesn’t change significantly based on the content of the imported
proto files, but mostly on the fact that it is imported.
Did you have considered replacing the need of actual import with some
kind of message forward declaration?
In my opinion having a single proto file self-sufficient even in case
it actually refers messages from other proto files could significantly
simplify the build process.
What the protobuf community thinks about this?
Thanks,
George
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Protocol Buffers group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comprotobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Protocol Buffers group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
