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

New Standard Proto Syntax (Editions) Support #173

Open
francoposa opened this issue Jan 9, 2025 · 2 comments
Open

New Standard Proto Syntax (Editions) Support #173

francoposa opened this issue Jan 9, 2025 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request triage Issues that need to be reviewed by maintainers

Comments

@francoposa
Copy link

Title

Support for new standard proto syntax: https://protobuf.dev/editions/overview/
Edition 2023 is already in use, with Edition 2024 coming "early 2025"

Will this be implemented?

Description

Currently when using editions with latest protoc:

protoc \
  -I . \
  --go_opt=default_api_level=API_OPAQUE \
  --go_out=paths=source_relative:. \
  --fastmarshal_out=apiversion=v2,paths=source_relative:. \
  --go-grpc_out=require_unimplemented_servers=false,paths=source_relative:. \
  ring/ring.proto
ring/ring.proto: is an editions file, but code generator protoc-gen-fastmarshal hasn't been updated to support editions yet.  Please ask the owner of this code generator to add support or switch back to proto2/proto3. 

Additional Info

Any extra documentation required to understand the issue.

@francoposa francoposa added enhancement New feature or request triage Issues that need to be reviewed by maintainers labels Jan 9, 2025
@francoposa
Copy link
Author

related: protocolbuffers/protobuf#19955

We would like to move off of gogoproto to csproto, and having the ability to strip enum prefixes would massively reduce the size of our changesets

@wmorgan6796
Copy link
Contributor

Looking into what it would take to implement this (https://protobuf.dev/editions/implementation) and this looks to be a sizeable chunk of work. It will be difficult for us to get this implemented as there is no driving force to move us off proto2/proto3 to editions.

That being said, if you wanted to take a crack at it, I would be more than willing to review the PRs and work to get that merged.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request triage Issues that need to be reviewed by maintainers
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants