consul

Branch: CC-6363/downgrade-node-for-ci

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Matt Keeler	085c0addc0	Protobuf Refactoring for Multi-Module Cleanliness (#16302 ) Protobuf Refactoring for Multi-Module Cleanliness This commit includes the following: Moves all packages that were within proto/ to proto/private Rewrites imports to account for the packages being moved Adds in buf.work.yaml to enable buf workspaces Names the proto-public buf module so that we can override the Go package imports within proto/buf.yaml Bumps the buf version dependency to 1.14.0 (I was trying out the version to see if it would get around an issue - it didn't but it also doesn't break things and it seemed best to keep up with the toolchain changes) Why: In the future we will need to consume other protobuf dependencies such as the Google HTTP annotations for openapi generation or grpc-gateway usage. There were some recent changes to have our own ratelimiting annotations. The two combined were not working when I was trying to use them together (attempting to rebase another branch) Buf workspaces should be the solution to the problem Buf workspaces means that each module will have generated Go code that embeds proto file names relative to the proto dir and not the top level repo root. This resulted in proto file name conflicts in the Go global protobuf type registry. The solution to that was to add in a private/ directory into the path within the proto/ directory. That then required rewriting all the imports. Is this safe? AFAICT yes The gRPC wire protocol doesn't seem to care about the proto file names (although the Go grpc code does tack on the proto file name as Metadata in the ServiceDesc) Other than imports, there were no changes to any generated code as a result of this.	2 years ago
Matt Keeler	77917b6b5d	Rename some protobuf package names to be fqdn like (#13861 ) These are used in various bits of the wire format (for gRPC) and internally with Go’s registry so we want to namespace things properly.	2 years ago
Matt Keeler	26f4ea3f01	Migrate from `protoc` to `buf` (#12841 ) * Install `buf` instead of `protoc` * Created `buf.yaml` and `buf.gen.yaml` files in the two proto directories to control how `buf` generates/lints proto code. * Invoke `buf` instead of `protoc` * Added a `proto-format` make target. * Committed the reformatted proto files. * Added a `proto-lint` make target. * Integrated proto linting with CI * Fixed tons of proto linter warnings. * Got rid of deprecated builtin protoc-gen-go grpc plugin usage. Moved to direct usage of protoc-gen-go-grpc. * Unified all proto directories / go packages around using pb prefixes but ensuring all proto packages do not have the prefix.	3 years ago

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Matt Keeler

085c0addc0

Protobuf Refactoring for Multi-Module Cleanliness (#16302 )

Protobuf Refactoring for Multi-Module Cleanliness

This commit includes the following:

Moves all packages that were within proto/ to proto/private
Rewrites imports to account for the packages being moved
Adds in buf.work.yaml to enable buf workspaces
Names the proto-public buf module so that we can override the Go package imports within proto/buf.yaml
Bumps the buf version dependency to 1.14.0 (I was trying out the version to see if it would get around an issue - it didn't but it also doesn't break things and it seemed best to keep up with the toolchain changes)

Why:

In the future we will need to consume other protobuf dependencies such as the Google HTTP annotations for openapi generation or grpc-gateway usage.
There were some recent changes to have our own ratelimiting annotations.
The two combined were not working when I was trying to use them together (attempting to rebase another branch)
Buf workspaces should be the solution to the problem
Buf workspaces means that each module will have generated Go code that embeds proto file names relative to the proto dir and not the top level repo root.
This resulted in proto file name conflicts in the Go global protobuf type registry.
The solution to that was to add in a private/ directory into the path within the proto/ directory.
That then required rewriting all the imports.

Is this safe?

AFAICT yes
The gRPC wire protocol doesn't seem to care about the proto file names (although the Go grpc code does tack on the proto file name as Metadata in the ServiceDesc)
Other than imports, there were no changes to any generated code as a result of this.

2 years ago

Matt Keeler

77917b6b5d

Rename some protobuf package names to be fqdn like (#13861 )

These are used in various bits of the wire format (for gRPC) and internally with Go’s registry so we want to namespace things properly.

2 years ago

Matt Keeler

26f4ea3f01

Migrate from `protoc` to `buf` (#12841 )

* Install `buf` instead of `protoc`
* Created `buf.yaml` and `buf.gen.yaml` files in the two proto directories to control how `buf` generates/lints proto code.
* Invoke `buf` instead of `protoc`
* Added a `proto-format` make target.
* Committed the reformatted proto files.
* Added a `proto-lint` make target.
* Integrated proto linting with CI
* Fixed tons of proto linter warnings.
* Got rid of deprecated builtin protoc-gen-go grpc plugin usage. Moved to direct usage of protoc-gen-go-grpc.
* Unified all proto directories / go packages around using pb prefixes but ensuring all proto packages do not have the prefix.

3 years ago

3 Commits (CC-6363/downgrade-node-for-ci)