Remove of optional fields from sdv.databroker.v1 and kuksa.val.v2 due to older proto3 versions limitations.

[rafaeling]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 25.95420% with 97 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 59.63%. Comparing base (e737ae0) to head (325b533).
Report is 3 commits behind head on feature/databroker-api-v2.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...tabroker/src/grpc/sdv_databroker_v1/conversions.rs	0.00%	77 Missing ⚠️
databroker/src/grpc/kuksa_val_v2/conversions.rs	45.94%	20 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                      Coverage Diff                      @@
##           feature/databroker-api-v2      #96      +/-   ##
=============================================================
+ Coverage                      59.36%   59.63%   +0.26%     
=============================================================
  Files                             33       33              
  Lines                          16005    15926      -79     
=============================================================
- Hits                            9502     9498       -4     
+ Misses                          6503     6428      -75     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[argerus]

I would prefer if the kuksa.val.v1 concept of ValueRestriction was not carried over to the other protos

[erikbosch]

I have nothing in particular against this PR, but do we know if this will have any impact on any existing clients. Any thoughts @lukasmittag ?

[erikbosch]

We should better add in the PR description or commit description why we remove optional. If I remember correct it is because older proto3 versions does not support it, right?, but if so we should better document it so we do not forget it. Possibly even worth mentioning in proto to avoid adding new optional fields later.

[argerus]

Possibly even worth mentioning in proto to avoid adding new optional fields later.

I think that's a very good idea.

[rafaeling]

We should better add in the PR description or commit description why we remove optional. If I remember correct it is because older proto3 versions does not support it, right?, but if so we should better document it so we do not forget it. Possibly even worth mentioning in proto to avoid adding new optional fields later.

Added