feat: Revamp protobufs and implement Buf for gRPC stubs

[kushthedude]

fixes #247
fixes #181
fixes #43
Signed-off-by: kushthedude kushthedude@gmail.com

Changes Included:

• Package name fixed according to the convention of . which signifies directory tree
• Service & Contract separated for easy of reading & maintainbility
• Included Service in the suffix of the service according to Buf rules.
• Integrated Buf in the CI
• Buf configuration fixed to acknowledge the presence of google_api protos.
• Explicitly applied best practices rules on proto & modified the protos according to them.
• Revamped the gRPC stub calls to ensure everything is stable

[kushthedude]

@shravanshetty1 The generated files are failing because the stubs need to be regenerated which I am planning to generate with buf in the successive PR which will update the readme too.

[shravanshetty1]

@shravanshetty1 The generated files are failing because the stubs need to be regenerated which I am planning to generate with buf in the successive PR which will update the readme too.

I think its best you do those changes in this PR itself

[shravanshetty1]

^comment

[kushthedude]

Got it, making the changes now!

…

On Sun, 18 Jul, 2021, 23:29 Shravan Shetty, ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** requested changes on this pull request. ^comment — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#252 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKQMTLUBSXK74W4SUXZZGRTTYMI7ZANCNFSM5AQ6F5VQ> .

[kushthedude]

@shravanshetty1 This is done! All the references & tests have been revamped.

[kushthedude]

The generated files action I will change when introducing the buf in CI which should go in another PR as this PR has already become quite huge!

[shravanshetty1]

The generated files action I will change when introducing the buf in CI which should go in another PR as this PR has already become quite huge!

Ideally would have preferred if all buf related changes were in 1 PR including this #250. Its fine if the PR is getting bigger since the tests are ensuring nothing is going to break.

[kushthedude]

Hey @shravanshetty1 is this good to be merged?

[shravanshetty1]

Hey @shravanshetty1 is this good to be merged?

the ci is still failing, fix the ci

[kushthedude]

@shravanshetty1 The generated files are failing because the stubs need to be regenerated which I am planning to generate with buf in the successive PR which will update the readme too.

@shravanshetty1 ^^

[shravanshetty1]

@shravanshetty1 The generated files are failing because the stubs need to be regenerated which I am planning to generate with buf in the successive PR which will update the readme too.

@shravanshetty1 ^^

The generated files action I will change when introducing the buf in CI which should go in another PR as this PR has already become quite huge!

Ideally would have preferred if all buf related changes were in 1 PR including this #250. Its fine if the PR is getting bigger since the tests are ensuring nothing is going to break.

@kushthedude

[kushthedude]

Let me then remove the generated-file-integrity, because buf has breaking change detection too. Will ping you after updating

[shravanshetty1]

Let me then remove the generated-file-integrity, because buf has breaking change detection too. Will ping you after updating

Just use buf in the ci instead of what was there before....

[kushthedude]

@shravanshetty1 Please review!

[kushthedude]

Hey @moldis @cnlangzi , can you please review this PR?

[cnlangzi]

@kushthedude It would be appreciated if you could update naming with go-lint rule and add comment as much as possible. thanks

[cnlangzi]

@kushthedude LGTM for now. thanks

[moldis]

Looks good