With this in place, generating APIs on github.com/google/googleapis works - previously annotations.proto failed.
Currently there's no access to the annotations (stored as extensions) but we could potentially expose those at a later date.
- Removed a TODO without change in DescriptorPool.LookupSymbol - the TODOs were around performance, and this is only used during descriptor initialization
- Make the CodedInputStream limits read-only, adding a static factory method for the rare cases when this is useful
- Extracted IDeepCloneable into its own file.
This is a bit of a grotty hack, as we need to sort of fake proto2 field presence, but with only a proto3 version of the descriptor messages (a bit like oneof detection).
Should be okay, but will need to be careful of this if we ever implement proto2.
Now the generated code doesn't need to check for end group tags, as it will skip whole groups at a time.
Currently it will ignore extraneous end group tags, which may or may not be a good thing.
Renamed ConsumeLastField to SkipLastField as it felt more natural.
Removed WireFormat.IsEndGroupTag as it's no longer useful.
This mostly fixes issue 688.
(Generated code changes coming in next commit.)
This is taking an approach of putting all the logic in JsonFormatter. That's helpful in terms of concealing the details of whether or not to wrap the value in quotes, but it does lack flexibility. I don't *think* we want to allow user-defined formatting of messages, so that much shouldn't be a problem.
While I've provided operators, I haven't yet provided the method equivalents. It's not clear to me that
they're actually a good idea, while we're really targeting C# developers who definitely *can* use the user-defined operators.
Additionally, change it to return the value passed, and make it generic with a class constraint.
A separate method doesn't have the class constraint, for more unusual scenarios.
- Fix nupec paths
- Remove an obsolete part of the JSON build
- Add documentation and tests to reflection extension methods, and improve implementations
This requires .NET 4.5, and there are a few compatibility changes required around reflection.
Creating a PR from this to see how our CI systems handle it. Will want to add more documentation,
validation and probably tests before merging.
This is in aid of issue #590.
I think Jan was actually suggesting keeping both, but that feels redundant to me. The test diff is misleading here IMO, because I wouldn't expect real code using reflection to use several accessors one after another like this, unless it was within a loop. Evidence to the contrary would be welcome :)
This change also incidentally goes part way to fixing the issue of the JSON formatter not writing out the fields in field number order - with this change, it does except for oneofs, which we can fix in a follow-up change.
I haven't actually added a test with a message with fields deliberately out of order - I'm happy to do so though. It feels like it would make sense to be in google/src/protobuf, but it's not entirely clear what the rules of engagement are for adding new messages there. (unittest_proto3.proto?)
This is definitely not ready to ship - I'm "troubled" by the disconnect between a list of fields in declaration order, and a mapping of field accessors by field number/name. Discussion required, but I find that easier when we've got code to look at :)
Changes in brief:
1. Descriptor is now the entry point for all reflection.
2. IReflectedMessage has gone; there's now a Descriptor property in IMessage, which is explicitly implemented (due to the static property).
3. FieldAccessorTable has gone away
4. IFieldAccessor and OneofFieldAccessor still exist; we *could* put the functionality straight into FieldDescriptor and OneofDescriptor... I'm unsure about that.
5. There's a temporary property MessageDescriptor.FieldAccessorsByFieldNumber to make the test changes small - we probably want this to go away
6. Discovery for delegates is now via attributes applied to properties and the Clear method of a oneof
I'm happy with 1-3.
4 I'm unsure about - feedback welcome.
5 will go away
6 I'm unsure about, both in design and implementation. Should we have a ProtobufMessageAttribute too? Should we find all the relevant attributes in MessageDescriptor and pass them down, to avoid an O(N^2) scenario?
Generated code changes coming in the next commit.
- We do still generate the message types, as otherwise reflection breaks, even though it doesn't actually use those types.
- JSON handling hasn't been implemented yet
We don't use it in the runtime or generated code anywhere now, so the extra small performance boost isn't as critical, and it has some undesirable consequences.
The tests have needed to change as iterator block enumerators don't throw when we might expect them to.
This involves:
- Specifying a namespace in each proto (including ones we'd previously missed)
- Updating the generation script
- Changing codegen to implement IReflectedMessage.Fields explicitly (a good thing anyway)
- Changing reflection tests to take account of the explicit interface implementation
Non-generated code in this commit; generated code to follow
Change the C# namespace in descriptor.proto to Google.Protobuf.Reflection.
This then means changing where the generated code lives, which means updating the project file...
It also involves regenerating the C++ - which has updated the well-known types as well,
for no terribly obvious reason...
