Open woodruffw opened 1 year ago
I'm hesitant to add support for features that aren't from the official google spec, maybe @danielgtaylor has a differing opinion about this.
I don't know a ton about protobuf, so excuse my ignorance: is this not in the official Google spec in the sense that it's not part of the "core" spec? Because I believe AIP 203 itself is a Google-written specification, and the libraries that other languages use to support it are officially supported and released by Google as part of their protobuf support ecosystem.
Oh yes sorry, you're correct, go for it then.
Hi there! Thanks for creating and maintaining this package -- I'm currently looking into integrating protobuf messages into one of the Python projects I work on, and this looks like a really nice interface.
As part of designing the messages I'm planning on using, I'd like to be able to use AIP 203-style annotations to signal that particular fields are required on the wire. I can see these annotations show up in other codegen backends (like Go and Java), but they don't seem to have any effect on betterproto's generation.
Full context: https://github.com/sigstore/protobuf-specs/pull/41
Is this something that's currently possible with
betterproto
? If not, is there interest in adding support for it? If so, it's something I could take a stab at 🙂Thanks in advance!