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

fix(AIP-149): differentiate field presence and behavior #1143

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 13, 2023
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
26 changes: 26 additions & 0 deletions aip/general/0149.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -38,3 +38,29 @@ message Book {
value and unset most of the time; if an alternative design does not require
such a distinction, it is usually preferred. In practice, this means `optional`
**should** only ever be used for integers and floats.

**Important:** Tracking field presence is *not* the same as documenting API
field behavior as defined in [AIP-203][]. For example, a field labeled with
`optional` for presence tracking **may** also be annotated as
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

bah! Shouldn't that link to this AIP? Anyways, discussion of primitives, etc. is part of the guidance above, I don't think we need to discuss it further in this note. Is that fair?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I'd rather move more to the AIPs. it's more actively maintained.

The bifurcation cloud APIs and AIPs is a known issue though - when we have more breathing room we should probably tackle that.

`google.api.field_behavior = REQUIRED` if the field must be set. If you only
want to document the server perceived behavior of a field, read [AIP-203][].

## Rationale

### `optional` and field behavior
noahdietz marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

The field behavior annotation and `optional` label are not mutually exclusive,
because they address different problems. The former,
`google.api.field_behavior`, focuses on communicating the server's perception of
a field within the API e.g. if it is required or not, if it is immutable, etc.
The latter, proto3's `optional`, is a wire format and code generation option
that is strictly for toggling field presence tracking. While it might be
confusing for a field to be simultaneously annotated with
`google.api.field_behavior = REQUIRED` and labeled as `optional`, they are
unrelated in practice and can reasonably be used together.

## Changelog

- **2023-06-20**: Differentiate from field behavior documentation

[AIP-203]: ./0203.md