You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The README.md file clearly states if I built from source, that protoc version needs greater or equal to 3.15. But in Dockerfile, after docker builds, the version is 3.12.4.
What operating system did you use?
Ubuntu 22.04
Relevant log output and stack trace
# protoc --version
libprotoc 3.12.4
How can we reproduce the bug?
Run docker build
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I search into protoc's changelog and find out that
optional support is added in 3.12.0 as an experimental feature, need experimental_allow_proto3_optional flag to enable it
it goes stable in 3.15.0, and doesn't require extra flags since then.
2020-05-12 version 3.12.0 (C++/Java/Python/PHP/Objective-C/C#/Ruby/JavaScript)
Protocol Compiler
* [experimental] Singular, non-message typed fields in proto3 now support
presence tracking. This is enabled by adding the "optional" field label and
passing the --experimental_allow_proto3_optional flag to protoc.
* For usage info, see docs/field_presence.md.
* During this experimental phase, code generators s
2021-02-05 version 3.15.0 (C++/Java/Python/PHP/Objective-C/C#/Ruby/JavaScript)
Protocol Compiler
* Optional fields for proto3 are enabled by default, and no longer require
the --experimental_allow_proto3_optional flag.
But now the codebase doesn't contain optional protocol as we are in progress of refactoring our gRPC protocol. I guess that's why 3.12.4 could compile.
What type of bug is this?
Other
What subsystems are affected?
Other
What happened?
The README.md file clearly states if I built from source, that protoc version needs greater or equal to 3.15. But in Dockerfile, after docker builds, the version is 3.12.4.
What operating system did you use?
Ubuntu 22.04
Relevant log output and stack trace
# protoc --version libprotoc 3.12.4
How can we reproduce the bug?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: