#4 add reserved 3 declaration to Property to guard against field reuse#17
Open
bibonix wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
#4 add reserved 3 declaration to Property to guard against field reuse#17bibonix wants to merge 1 commit into
bibonix wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Field 3 in the
Propertymessage was removed in an earlier revision but noreserveddeclaration was added. Withoutreserved 3, protoc and buf allow a future field to claim that number, which would silently corrupt wire data for any client serialized against the old schema.Adding
reserved 3;betweencountryandipblocks the number from being assigned to a new field and makes buf-breaking checks flag any attempt to reuse it.No generated code changes; this is a schema-only fix. No build or test infrastructure exists in the repository yet (see #3), so the check is limited to manual
protocsyntax validation.Closes #4