Code generator doesn't take into account package names

[mxpv]

It looks like that the rust version of ttrpc code generator doesn't take into account proto package names when generating the code. This leads to all endpoints are being prefixed (example) with /grpc.ServiceName instead of /PackageName.ServiceName. This makes it incompatible with the existing Go based generator, which adds package names (for instance events: events.proto, events.pb.go)

How to reproduce: I took this file: https://github.com/containerd/containerd/blob/master/runtime/v2/task/shim.proto and ran with:

protoc \
    --rust_out=. \
    --ttrpc_out=. \
    --plugin=protoc-gen-ttrpc=$(shell which ttrpc_rust_plugin) \
    -I/work \
    -I$(shell go env GOPATH)/src \
    -I$(shell go env GOPATH)/src/github.com/gogo/protobuf \
    dir

The output of shim_ttrpc.rs looks like this:

pub fn create_task(service: Arc>) -> HashMap > { let mut methods = HashMap::new(); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/State".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(state_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Create".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(create_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Start".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(start_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Delete".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(delete_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Pids".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(pids_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Pause".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(pause_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Resume".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(resume_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Checkpoint".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(checkpoint_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Kill".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(kill_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Exec".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(exec_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/ResizePty".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(resize_pty_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/CloseIO".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(close_io_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Update".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(update_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Wait".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(wait_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Stats".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(stats_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Connect".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(connect_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods.insert("/grpc.Task/Shutdown".to_string(), std::boxed::Box::new(shutdown_method{service: service.clone()}) as std::boxed::Box<::ttrpc::MethodHandler + Send + Sync>); methods }

[teawater]

@mxpv I test this part with ttrpc-go generation code. But I am not sure whether the generation command is right. Did you test this part with containerd?

[mxpv]

@teawater yes, I'm testing rust client/server against containerd. After I replaced endpoints manually, everything worked fine.

[teawater]

@mxpv Thanks for your report! I was confused by the package name and protocol. Do you want to post PR for this issue?

[teawater]

@mxpv Could you help me test the PR?

[mxpv]

Do you want to post PR for this issue?

@teawater sorry, was going to have a look next week.

Could you help me test the PR?

Yep, the fix from fix_package_name branch works like a charm :)