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

Upgrade invocation_policy.proto to proto3 #14061

Closed
sushain97 opened this issue Sep 30, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed

Upgrade invocation_policy.proto to proto3 #14061

sushain97 opened this issue Sep 30, 2021 · 3 comments
Labels
team-Remote-Exec Issues and PRs for the Execution (Remote) team untriaged

Comments

@sushain97
Copy link
Contributor

Description of the problem / feature request:

Please upgrade the invocation_policy.proto file to the proto3 syntax.

It's currently proto2:

Feature requests: what underlying problem are you trying to solve with this feature?

I'm attempting to generate Ruby bindings for the BES protos defined here:

proto_library(
name = "build_event_stream_proto",
srcs = ["build_event_stream.proto"],
deps = [
"//src/main/protobuf:command_line_proto",
"//src/main/protobuf:failure_details_proto",
"//src/main/protobuf:invocation_policy_proto",
"@com_google_protobuf//:duration_proto",
"@com_google_protobuf//:timestamp_proto",
],
)

Unfortunately, it doesn't support proto2: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/reference/ruby-generated.

For the moment only proto3 is supported. Support for proto2 is planned, but not available yet.

Fortunately, this is the only transitive dependency of the BES protos which uses proto2.

@sventiffe sventiffe added team-Remote-Exec Issues and PRs for the Execution (Remote) team untriaged labels Oct 5, 2021
@benjaminp
Copy link
Collaborator

Is the stated rationale valid after protocolbuffers/protobuf#9003?

@sushain97
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry for the late reply -- it took a while to get a new version rolled out. I agree that the stated rationale is no longer valid. Thanks for the pointer!

However, it still seems like it would be good hygiene to have everything in proto3?

Either way, I'll leave it to the maintainers on whether to close this issue or not.

@coeuvre
Copy link
Member

coeuvre commented Apr 8, 2022

Thanks for the issue. We cannot simply upgrade it proto3 due to internal usages. Closing.

@coeuvre coeuvre closed this as completed Apr 8, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
team-Remote-Exec Issues and PRs for the Execution (Remote) team untriaged
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants