Fork me on GitHub
#protojure
<
2020-06-11
>
sbrauer12:06:15

@ghaskins Sorry to @ you. Any help with my issue would be much appreciated.

ghaskins12:06:39

That does indeed look wrong

ghaskins12:06:58

(by that, i mean, it looks like protojure didnt generate the code correctly)

ghaskins12:06:27

based on your proto, i would have expected all 4 tags to be represented there

ghaskins12:06:31

let me see if I can figure out what happened

ghaskins12:06:14

my guess is the google.protobuf.Struct is being mishandled

sbrauer12:06:21

thank you! hope it's something easy/quick to fix.

ghaskins12:06:47

as a quick test, can you comment out that field and see if 3+4 emerge in the output

ghaskins13:06:03

I just checked and confirmed that google.protobuf.Struct is at least represented in our lib, so thats a good start

ghaskins13:06:23

now let me figure out why it gave the code generator heartburn

sbrauer13:06:51

your guess was right. i switched the type of the 2nd field from google.protobuf.Struct to string and the generated code includes all 4 fields.

ghaskins13:06:27

ok...thats a good hint, ty

ghaskins13:06:41

i pulled your repo but the layout seems different from your report

ghaskins13:06:45

do I need a specific branch?

ghaskins13:06:55

or can you share the compilation steps you took?

sbrauer13:06:58

it's branch v2

ghaskins13:06:35

that looks better, ty

ghaskins13:06:45

ok, i reproduced it

sbrauer13:06:14

always a great first step

sbrauer20:06:12

(hope i didn't sound patronizing. just meant that i'm glad to hear it's reproducible. thank you so much for troubleshooting this.)