[protobuf] Represent TypeSpec optional properties as optional fields#10598
Open
witemple-msft wants to merge 4 commits intomicrosoft:mainfrom
Open
[protobuf] Represent TypeSpec optional properties as optional fields#10598witemple-msft wants to merge 4 commits intomicrosoft:mainfrom
optional fields#10598witemple-msft wants to merge 4 commits intomicrosoft:mainfrom
Conversation
commit: |
Contributor
|
All changed packages have been documented.
Show changes
|
Collaborator
|
You can try these changes here
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resolves a long-outstanding capability issue with the protobuf emitter not supporting
optionalbecause it wasn't specified in the proto3 language specification when this emitter was created.There is a fair amount of nuance about how "optionality" is represented in protobuf (everything is actually optional in a protobuf message -- the only difference is whether "presence" is explicit or implicit, so
optionalis really rather a misnomer).optionalbecause Protobuf message-typed fields always have explicit presence discipline. Applications are responsible for validating whether an "unset" field is acceptable.optional. However, the alternative is not that the message will fail to validate if the field is not provided, rather that the client will provide the default value of that scalar (zero, empty string, etc.).repeated/map-typed fields (TypeSpec arrays,Protobuf.Map), we produce a warning. Due to the nature of howrepeatedfields are encoded (andmapdesugars to arepeatedkey-value pair), it is impossible to differentiate empty from unset in an encoded protobuf message.Closes #10499
Closes #4311