Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Field behavior #15

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rambleraptor
Copy link
Member

This adds aep.api.FieldBehavior

@rambleraptor rambleraptor requested a review from a team as a code owner July 17, 2024 20:43
// aep.protobuf.Timestamp expire_time = 1
// [(aep.api.field_behavior) = OUTPUT_ONLY,
// (aep.api.field_behavior) = IMMUTABLE];
repeated aep.api.FieldBehavior field_behavior = 1052 [packed = false];
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

probably need a new field extension number?

// Specifically denotes a field as optional.
// While all fields in protocol buffers are optional, this may be specified
// for emphasis if appropriate.
OPTIONAL = 1;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

kind of hilarious that the aep protos themselves are not proto compliant. I kind of find FIELD_BEHAVIOR_OPTIONAL ugly myself, but I guess we don't want conflicts in generated libraries.

option go_package = "aep.dev/api";
option java_multiple_files = true;
option java_outer_classname = "FieldBehaviorProto";
option java_package = "com.aep.api";
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

probably needs to be fixed - no reason to not be consistent here, is there?

option java_multiple_files = true;
option java_outer_classname = "FieldBehaviorProto";
option java_package = "com.aep.api";
option objc_class_prefix = "AEP";
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should this be lowercase?

Copy link
Member

@toumorokoshi toumorokoshi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm approving primarily because I don't spot any issues that aren't already raised by the linter.

If the issues raised by the linter are fixed - LGTM!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants