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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Correctly support proto3 optional fields in commonjs+dts .d.ts output #1184

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 28, 2022
Merged

Correctly support proto3 optional fields in commonjs+dts .d.ts output #1184

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7259979
Correctly support proto3 optional fields in commonjs+dts .d.ts output
mattnathan Jan 10, 2022
75b3145
Use has_optional_keyword instead of is_optional
mattnathan Jan 10, 2022
a0348a2
Improve the readability of the condition guarding hasXxx .d.ts field …
mattnathan Jan 28, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 9 additions & 7 deletions javascript/net/grpc/web/generator/grpc_generator.cc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -825,11 +825,11 @@ void PrintProtoDtsMessage(Printer* printer, const Descriptor* desc,
"set$js_field_name$(value?: $js_field_type$): "
"$class_name$;\n");
}
if (field->type() == FieldDescriptor::TYPE_MESSAGE &&
if ((field->type() == FieldDescriptor::TYPE_MESSAGE || field->has_optional_keyword()) &&
!field->is_repeated() && !field->is_map()) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: i'd probably prefer to maybe rewrite the logic as follows:

(field->has_optional_keyword() ||
    (field->type() == FieldDescriptor::TYPE_MESSAGE && 
        !field->is_repeated() &&
        !field->is_map())

Probably doesn't make a huge difference, but it seems to make a little bit more sense to me.. :P

WDYT? :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure.

The semantics of the two conditions is only the same when you factor in the proto3 language spec disallowing optional on map or repeated fields.

I read it as when the field is a message or optional, but not when repeated or a map as opposed to when the field is optional (which implies it's not repeated or a map), or it's a message but not repeated or a map.

I'll leave the final decision up to you though :)

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The semantics of the two conditions is only the same when you factor in the proto3 language spec disallowing optional on map or repeated fields.

Yeah i think that was my exactly concern.. -- that optional is mutually exclusive with repeated and map so i don't think they should be in a AND relationship.. :)

I read it as when the field is a message or optional, but not when repeated or a map as opposed to when the field is optional (which implies it's not repeated or a map), or it's a message but not repeated or a map.

Yeah right.. although i felt that's a little long-winded.. (and i had some challenge understanding that too) 😅

Where i was thinking as: when the field is optional, or a message that is not repeated or a map.

I feel the latter is simpler and easier to reason. :)

If you are ok both ways, do you mind making the change? Thanks! :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The change has been made

Not sure what the process is around resolving conversations, so I'll leave this thread here

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks a lot for the change! I guess it doesn't hurt to just leave them open here :D

printer->Print(vars, "has$js_field_name$(): boolean;\n");
}
if (field->type() == FieldDescriptor::TYPE_MESSAGE ||
if (field->type() == FieldDescriptor::TYPE_MESSAGE || field->has_optional_keyword() ||
field->is_repeated() || field->is_map()) {
printer->Print(vars, "clear$js_field_name$(): $class_name$;\n");
}
Expand All @@ -852,10 +852,12 @@ void PrintProtoDtsMessage(Printer* printer, const Descriptor* desc,

for (int i = 0; i < desc->oneof_decl_count(); i++) {
const OneofDescriptor* oneof = desc->oneof_decl(i);
vars["js_oneof_name"] = ToUpperCamel(ParseLowerUnderscore(oneof->name()));
printer->Print(
vars, "get$js_oneof_name$Case(): $class_name$.$js_oneof_name$Case;\n");
printer->Print("\n");
if (!oneof->is_synthetic()) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Btw nice job finding the is_synthetic() API!😃

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, you forget what it's like to find docs via Google instead of using your IDE 😂

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes right.. 😄

vars["js_oneof_name"] = ToUpperCamel(ParseLowerUnderscore(oneof->name()));
printer->Print(
vars, "get$js_oneof_name$Case(): $class_name$.$js_oneof_name$Case;\n");
printer->Print("\n");
}
}

printer->Print(
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -885,7 +887,7 @@ void PrintProtoDtsMessage(Printer* printer, const Descriptor* desc,
}
vars["js_field_name"] = js_field_name;
vars["js_field_type"] = AsObjectFieldType(field, file);
if (field->type() != FieldDescriptor::TYPE_MESSAGE ||
if ((field->type() != FieldDescriptor::TYPE_MESSAGE && !field->has_optional_keyword()) ||
field->is_repeated()) {
printer->Print(vars, "$js_field_name$: $js_field_type$,\n");
} else {
Expand Down