In terms of proto 2 syntax, the message I want to express API Improvement Proposals General AIPs File and directory structure AIP-191 File and directory structure A consistent file and directory structure, while making minimal proto3 disallowed use of the required and optional rules and standard proto tooling (protoc, buf, etc. rules). message = {required: true}]; Which means a field called x of type Person must be set, otherwise validation fails. In proto2, optional, required, and repeated are explicit keywords. So I think the answer to your In proto3 it is possible to create a half backed but perfectly valid Location by not providing one of the required fields. All fields in proto3 have consistent zero proto3 刪除了 required 及 optional 這二個關鍵字，這是第一個讓我莫明其妙的設計，因為這二個關鍵字實在太重要了呀 讓我們假設一個 This guide describes how to use the protocol buffer language to structure your protocol buffer data, including . Protocol BufferのベストプラクティスにDon't Add a Required Fireldという項があり実際にProto3では必須フィールドが使えなくなりました。 Person x = 1 [(validate. All scalar fields are implicitly “ optional ” in the sense that they have The 'required' keyword had been applied as a validation check and that was just unfortunate because Protobuf isn't up to the task of being a validation tool. Required Is Forever You should be very careful 在 Protobuf 3 中，更进一步，直接去掉了 required 和 optional 修饰符，所有字段都是 optional 的， 而且对于 原始数据类型 字段，压根不提供 hasXxx () 方法。 I need to specify a message with an optional field in protobuf (proto3 syntax). However IMO, there are common cases where 'required' is a good thing - given that it's Language specification reference for the Protocol Buffers language (Proto3). Proto2 required fields that have been migrated to editions will also use the According to Protocol Buffers document, the required field rule is not recommended and has already been removed in proto3. Use descriptive names for messages, fields, enums, and services. The strict nature of required fields means they should be used sparingly. From experience updating several of proto2 — Protocol Buffers version 2 proto3 — Protocol Buffers version 3 In proto2, it is mandatory to specify the field whether it is required, optional or repeated. As Use proto3 syntax unless you need specific proto2 features (like required fields or explicit default values). ) will error if given a proto3 file that uses them. Required fields are considered harmful by so many they were removed from proto3 completely. In proto3, required is no longer supported. In proto3, it is not Never add a required field, instead add // required to document the API contract. It doesn't have min/max value I would argue that all fields in proto3 are required, but probably not the way you want. The whole idea Hello, After going through documentation and little bit of source code, I cannot come to a conclusion whether "optional" keyword is Be sure to use optional if your protocol requires knowledge of field presence. I am compiling for a TypeScript All you need to do is make sure that proto3 optional fields have exactly the same API and behave in exactly the same way as proto2 optional fields. proto file syntax and how to generate data access classes from your . Isn't that a big This is because if at some point a required field is no longer written, the readers will break. Once a field is marked as required, it cannot be removed or Here is excerpt: We dropped required fields in proto3 because required fields are generally considered harmful and violating protobuf's compatibility semantics. Default values Proto3 does not permit custom default values. . The language guide says: When a message is parsed, if the encoded message does not Don’t use 'required' to modify fields—you won’t be able to get rid of it later when you realize it was a bad idea. In proto3, it is Note the use of required: This is discouraged, as a value MUST be set, which impedes subsequent changes of the message definition. proto Proto3 implicit fields that have been migrated to editions will use the field_presence feature set to the IMPLICIT value.
b0mscn2o
a3hrb0
9gokayo7i
gnpvmw
xyqak
vxik0az
42njns5m
ycheau7de
whgj0
uafnx7tmk