[Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations #80

Open
Open
[Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations#80
Assignees
pkwarren
Labels
FeatureNew feature or request

Description

@andrewparmet
andrewparmet
opened on Dec 26, 2023

Feature description:

I'd like to generify the Value interface to accommodate validation of Protobuf messages generated by other implementations. Specifically I'd like to implement support for protokt.

Problem it solves or use case:

It would be nice to write another implementation of protovalidate for a JVM language without having to reinvent the wheel or fork this project.

Proposed implementation or solution:

It turns out you don't have to do much to generify this project.

First you change Value to reference a generic "MessageLike" interface. Then from everything that fails to compile, I derived the exact reflection capabilities protovalidate-java requires of a Protobuf runtime:

// This name is subject to change.
interface MessageLike {
// Whether a message has a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
boolean hasField(FieldDescriptor field);
// Get the value of a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
Value getField(FieldDescriptor field);
}

Separately the Value interface changes slightly. Sometimes we need to extract the JVM value to verify things in Java code (e.g. Any type URL or enum value); sometimes we need the binding value that the runtime under test should provide to CEL's runtime.

Contribution:

I have already implemented this proposal[1]. My fork passes all conformance tests for protobuf-java and protokt[2]. The branch is a bit sloppy since it's a POC, but the conformance tests can be swapped from the Java implementation to the protokt implementation by changing the main class of the conformance:conformance task from Main to Main2.

https://github.com/andrewparmet/protovalidate-protokt/pull/9

If my changes to the various evaluator classes can be merged here, then I can write a spinoff library that reuses the majority of the implementation code in this project to validate Protokt messages.

As a bonus it would be great to be able to generate the conformance test cases using the protobuf-gradle-plugin from a JAR on Maven Central so I don't have to invoke buf export. Maybe protovalidate-java can bundle them. Protokt manually syncs its conformance proto file with the main protobuf repo so buf export is still better on the whole.

Thanks!

[1] The implementation requires a few changes to protokt found on this branch. merged

[2] With a small set of tests that I think are not actually always possible to cover given a proto3-compliant runtime. These are called out in my branch, but I force them to pass anyways since there's no option to skip them like the Protobuf conformance tests and I didn't want to figure out how to make a failure list for the hack into the existing protovalidate-java conformance runtime. fixed

Additional context:

I'm the author of protokt and the buf-gradle-plugin.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

FeatureNew feature or request

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
     blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

    Skip to content
    [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations #80
    Open
    Open
    [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations#80
    Assignees
    pkwarren
    Labels
    FeatureNew feature or request
    Description
    @andrewparmet
    andrewparmet
    opened on Dec 26, 2023
    Feature description:
    I'd like to generify the Value interface to accommodate validation of Protobuf messages generated by other implementations. Specifically I'd like to implement support for protokt.
    Problem it solves or use case:
    It would be nice to write another implementation of protovalidate for a JVM language without having to reinvent the wheel or fork this project.
    Proposed implementation or solution:
    It turns out you don't have to do much to generify this project.
    First you change Value to reference a generic "MessageLike" interface. Then from everything that fails to compile, I derived the exact reflection capabilities protovalidate-java requires of a Protobuf runtime:
    // This name is subject to change.
interface MessageLike {
// Whether a message has a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
boolean hasField(FieldDescriptor field);
// Get the value of a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
Value getField(FieldDescriptor field);
}

    Separately the Value interface changes slightly. Sometimes we need to extract the JVM value to verify things in Java code (e.g. Any type URL or enum value); sometimes we need the binding value that the runtime under test should provide to CEL's runtime.
    Contribution:
    I have already implemented this proposal[1]. My fork passes all conformance tests for protobuf-java and protokt[2]. The branch is a bit sloppy since it's a POC, but the conformance tests can be swapped from the Java implementation to the protokt implementation by changing the main class of the conformance:conformance task from Main to Main2.
    https://github.com/andrewparmet/protovalidate-protokt/pull/9
    If my changes to the various evaluator classes can be merged here, then I can write a spinoff library that reuses the majority of the implementation code in this project to validate Protokt messages.
    As a bonus it would be great to be able to generate the conformance test cases using the protobuf-gradle-plugin from a JAR on Maven Central so I don't have to invoke buf export. Maybe protovalidate-java can bundle them. Protokt manually syncs its conformance proto file with the main protobuf repo so buf export is still better on the whole.
    Thanks!
    [1] The implementation requires a few changes to protokt found on this branch. merged
    [2] With a small set of tests that I think are not actually always possible to cover given a proto3-compliant runtime. These are called out in my branch, but I force them to pass anyways since there's no option to skip them like the Protobuf conformance tests and I didn't want to figure out how to make a failure list for the hack into the existing protovalidate-java conformance runtime. fixed
    Additional context:
    I'm the author of protokt and the buf-gradle-plugin.
    Metadata
    Metadata
    Assignees
    Labels
    FeatureNew feature or request
    Type
    No type
    Projects
    No projects
      Milestone
      No milestone
      Relationships
      None yet
      Development
      No branches or pull requests
      Issue actions
      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

      Skip to content
      [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations #80
      Open
      Open
      [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations#80
      Assignees
      pkwarren
      Labels
      FeatureNew feature or request
      Description
      @andrewparmet
      andrewparmet
      opened on Dec 26, 2023
      Feature description:
      I'd like to generify the Value interface to accommodate validation of Protobuf messages generated by other implementations. Specifically I'd like to implement support for protokt.
      Problem it solves or use case:
      It would be nice to write another implementation of protovalidate for a JVM language without having to reinvent the wheel or fork this project.
      Proposed implementation or solution:
      It turns out you don't have to do much to generify this project.
      First you change Value to reference a generic "MessageLike" interface. Then from everything that fails to compile, I derived the exact reflection capabilities protovalidate-java requires of a Protobuf runtime:
      // This name is subject to change.
interface MessageLike {
// Whether a message has a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
boolean hasField(FieldDescriptor field);
// Get the value of a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
Value getField(FieldDescriptor field);
}

      Separately the Value interface changes slightly. Sometimes we need to extract the JVM value to verify things in Java code (e.g. Any type URL or enum value); sometimes we need the binding value that the runtime under test should provide to CEL's runtime.
      Contribution:
      I have already implemented this proposal[1]. My fork passes all conformance tests for protobuf-java and protokt[2]. The branch is a bit sloppy since it's a POC, but the conformance tests can be swapped from the Java implementation to the protokt implementation by changing the main class of the conformance:conformance task from Main to Main2.
      https://github.com/andrewparmet/protovalidate-protokt/pull/9
      If my changes to the various evaluator classes can be merged here, then I can write a spinoff library that reuses the majority of the implementation code in this project to validate Protokt messages.
      As a bonus it would be great to be able to generate the conformance test cases using the protobuf-gradle-plugin from a JAR on Maven Central so I don't have to invoke buf export. Maybe protovalidate-java can bundle them. Protokt manually syncs its conformance proto file with the main protobuf repo so buf export is still better on the whole.
      Thanks!
      [1] The implementation requires a few changes to protokt found on this branch. merged
      [2] With a small set of tests that I think are not actually always possible to cover given a proto3-compliant runtime. These are called out in my branch, but I force them to pass anyways since there's no option to skip them like the Protobuf conformance tests and I didn't want to figure out how to make a failure list for the hack into the existing protovalidate-java conformance runtime. fixed
      Additional context:
      I'm the author of protokt and the buf-gradle-plugin.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      Labels
      FeatureNew feature or request
      Type
      No type
      Projects
      No projects
        Milestone
        No milestone
        Relationships
        None yet
        Development
        No branches or pull requests
        Issue actions
        
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

        Skip to content
        [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations #80
        Open
        Open
        [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations#80
        Assignees
        pkwarren
        Labels
        FeatureNew feature or request
        Description
        @andrewparmet
        andrewparmet
        opened on Dec 26, 2023
        Feature description:
        I'd like to generify the Value interface to accommodate validation of Protobuf messages generated by other implementations. Specifically I'd like to implement support for protokt.
        Problem it solves or use case:
        It would be nice to write another implementation of protovalidate for a JVM language without having to reinvent the wheel or fork this project.
        Proposed implementation or solution:
        It turns out you don't have to do much to generify this project.
        First you change Value to reference a generic "MessageLike" interface. Then from everything that fails to compile, I derived the exact reflection capabilities protovalidate-java requires of a Protobuf runtime:
        // This name is subject to change.
interface MessageLike {
// Whether a message has a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
boolean hasField(FieldDescriptor field);
// Get the value of a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
Value getField(FieldDescriptor field);
}

        Separately the Value interface changes slightly. Sometimes we need to extract the JVM value to verify things in Java code (e.g. Any type URL or enum value); sometimes we need the binding value that the runtime under test should provide to CEL's runtime.
        Contribution:
        I have already implemented this proposal[1]. My fork passes all conformance tests for protobuf-java and protokt[2]. The branch is a bit sloppy since it's a POC, but the conformance tests can be swapped from the Java implementation to the protokt implementation by changing the main class of the conformance:conformance task from Main to Main2.
        https://github.com/andrewparmet/protovalidate-protokt/pull/9
        If my changes to the various evaluator classes can be merged here, then I can write a spinoff library that reuses the majority of the implementation code in this project to validate Protokt messages.
        As a bonus it would be great to be able to generate the conformance test cases using the protobuf-gradle-plugin from a JAR on Maven Central so I don't have to invoke buf export. Maybe protovalidate-java can bundle them. Protokt manually syncs its conformance proto file with the main protobuf repo so buf export is still better on the whole.
        Thanks!
        [1] The implementation requires a few changes to protokt found on this branch. merged
        [2] With a small set of tests that I think are not actually always possible to cover given a proto3-compliant runtime. These are called out in my branch, but I force them to pass anyways since there's no option to skip them like the Protobuf conformance tests and I didn't want to figure out how to make a failure list for the hack into the existing protovalidate-java conformance runtime. fixed
        Additional context:
        I'm the author of protokt and the buf-gradle-plugin.
        Metadata
        Metadata
        Assignees
        Labels
        FeatureNew feature or request
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

          Skip to content
          [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations #80
          Open
          Open
          [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations#80
          Assignees
          pkwarren
          Labels
          FeatureNew feature or request
          Description
          @andrewparmet
          andrewparmet
          opened on Dec 26, 2023
          Feature description:
          I'd like to generify the Value interface to accommodate validation of Protobuf messages generated by other implementations. Specifically I'd like to implement support for protokt.
          Problem it solves or use case:
          It would be nice to write another implementation of protovalidate for a JVM language without having to reinvent the wheel or fork this project.
          Proposed implementation or solution:
          It turns out you don't have to do much to generify this project.
          First you change Value to reference a generic "MessageLike" interface. Then from everything that fails to compile, I derived the exact reflection capabilities protovalidate-java requires of a Protobuf runtime:
          // This name is subject to change.
interface MessageLike {
// Whether a message has a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
boolean hasField(FieldDescriptor field);
// Get the value of a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
Value getField(FieldDescriptor field);
}

          Separately the Value interface changes slightly. Sometimes we need to extract the JVM value to verify things in Java code (e.g. Any type URL or enum value); sometimes we need the binding value that the runtime under test should provide to CEL's runtime.
          Contribution:
          I have already implemented this proposal[1]. My fork passes all conformance tests for protobuf-java and protokt[2]. The branch is a bit sloppy since it's a POC, but the conformance tests can be swapped from the Java implementation to the protokt implementation by changing the main class of the conformance:conformance task from Main to Main2.
          https://github.com/andrewparmet/protovalidate-protokt/pull/9
          If my changes to the various evaluator classes can be merged here, then I can write a spinoff library that reuses the majority of the implementation code in this project to validate Protokt messages.
          As a bonus it would be great to be able to generate the conformance test cases using the protobuf-gradle-plugin from a JAR on Maven Central so I don't have to invoke buf export. Maybe protovalidate-java can bundle them. Protokt manually syncs its conformance proto file with the main protobuf repo so buf export is still better on the whole.
          Thanks!
          [1] The implementation requires a few changes to protokt found on this branch. merged
          [2] With a small set of tests that I think are not actually always possible to cover given a proto3-compliant runtime. These are called out in my branch, but I force them to pass anyways since there's no option to skip them like the Protobuf conformance tests and I didn't want to figure out how to make a failure list for the hack into the existing protovalidate-java conformance runtime. fixed
          Additional context:
          I'm the author of protokt and the buf-gradle-plugin.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          Labels
          FeatureNew feature or request
          Type
          No type
          Projects
          No projects
            Milestone
            No milestone
            Relationships
            None yet
            Development
            No branches or pull requests
            Issue actions
            
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

            Skip to content
            [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations #80
            Open
            Open
            [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations#80
            Assignees
            pkwarren
            Labels
            FeatureNew feature or request
            Description
            @andrewparmet
            andrewparmet
            opened on Dec 26, 2023
            Feature description:
            I'd like to generify the Value interface to accommodate validation of Protobuf messages generated by other implementations. Specifically I'd like to implement support for protokt.
            Problem it solves or use case:
            It would be nice to write another implementation of protovalidate for a JVM language without having to reinvent the wheel or fork this project.
            Proposed implementation or solution:
            It turns out you don't have to do much to generify this project.
            First you change Value to reference a generic "MessageLike" interface. Then from everything that fails to compile, I derived the exact reflection capabilities protovalidate-java requires of a Protobuf runtime:
            // This name is subject to change.
interface MessageLike {
// Whether a message has a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
boolean hasField(FieldDescriptor field);
// Get the value of a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
Value getField(FieldDescriptor field);
}

            Separately the Value interface changes slightly. Sometimes we need to extract the JVM value to verify things in Java code (e.g. Any type URL or enum value); sometimes we need the binding value that the runtime under test should provide to CEL's runtime.
            Contribution:
            I have already implemented this proposal[1]. My fork passes all conformance tests for protobuf-java and protokt[2]. The branch is a bit sloppy since it's a POC, but the conformance tests can be swapped from the Java implementation to the protokt implementation by changing the main class of the conformance:conformance task from Main to Main2.
            https://github.com/andrewparmet/protovalidate-protokt/pull/9
            If my changes to the various evaluator classes can be merged here, then I can write a spinoff library that reuses the majority of the implementation code in this project to validate Protokt messages.
            As a bonus it would be great to be able to generate the conformance test cases using the protobuf-gradle-plugin from a JAR on Maven Central so I don't have to invoke buf export. Maybe protovalidate-java can bundle them. Protokt manually syncs its conformance proto file with the main protobuf repo so buf export is still better on the whole.
            Thanks!
            [1] The implementation requires a few changes to protokt found on this branch. merged
            [2] With a small set of tests that I think are not actually always possible to cover given a proto3-compliant runtime. These are called out in my branch, but I force them to pass anyways since there's no option to skip them like the Protobuf conformance tests and I didn't want to figure out how to make a failure list for the hack into the existing protovalidate-java conformance runtime. fixed
            Additional context:
            I'm the author of protokt and the buf-gradle-plugin.
            Metadata
            Metadata
            Assignees
            Labels
            FeatureNew feature or request
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

              Skip to content
              [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations #80
              Open
              Open
              [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations#80
              Assignees
              pkwarren
              Labels
              FeatureNew feature or request
              Description
              @andrewparmet
              andrewparmet
              opened on Dec 26, 2023
              Feature description:
              I'd like to generify the Value interface to accommodate validation of Protobuf messages generated by other implementations. Specifically I'd like to implement support for protokt.
              Problem it solves or use case:
              It would be nice to write another implementation of protovalidate for a JVM language without having to reinvent the wheel or fork this project.
              Proposed implementation or solution:
              It turns out you don't have to do much to generify this project.
              First you change Value to reference a generic "MessageLike" interface. Then from everything that fails to compile, I derived the exact reflection capabilities protovalidate-java requires of a Protobuf runtime:
              // This name is subject to change.
interface MessageLike {
// Whether a message has a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
boolean hasField(FieldDescriptor field);
// Get the value of a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
Value getField(FieldDescriptor field);
}

              Separately the Value interface changes slightly. Sometimes we need to extract the JVM value to verify things in Java code (e.g. Any type URL or enum value); sometimes we need the binding value that the runtime under test should provide to CEL's runtime.
              Contribution:
              I have already implemented this proposal[1]. My fork passes all conformance tests for protobuf-java and protokt[2]. The branch is a bit sloppy since it's a POC, but the conformance tests can be swapped from the Java implementation to the protokt implementation by changing the main class of the conformance:conformance task from Main to Main2.
              https://github.com/andrewparmet/protovalidate-protokt/pull/9
              If my changes to the various evaluator classes can be merged here, then I can write a spinoff library that reuses the majority of the implementation code in this project to validate Protokt messages.
              As a bonus it would be great to be able to generate the conformance test cases using the protobuf-gradle-plugin from a JAR on Maven Central so I don't have to invoke buf export. Maybe protovalidate-java can bundle them. Protokt manually syncs its conformance proto file with the main protobuf repo so buf export is still better on the whole.
              Thanks!
              [1] The implementation requires a few changes to protokt found on this branch. merged
              [2] With a small set of tests that I think are not actually always possible to cover given a proto3-compliant runtime. These are called out in my branch, but I force them to pass anyways since there's no option to skip them like the Protobuf conformance tests and I didn't want to figure out how to make a failure list for the hack into the existing protovalidate-java conformance runtime. fixed
              Additional context:
              I'm the author of protokt and the buf-gradle-plugin.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              Labels
              FeatureNew feature or request
              Type
              No type
              Projects
              No projects
                Milestone
                No milestone
                Relationships
                None yet
                Development
                No branches or pull requests
                Issue actions
                
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

                Skip to content
                [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations #80
                Open
                Open
                [Feature Request] Extending protovalidate-java to other JVM Protobuf implementations#80
                Assignees
                pkwarren
                Labels
                FeatureNew feature or request
                Description
                @andrewparmet
                andrewparmet
                opened on Dec 26, 2023
                Feature description:
                I'd like to generify the Value interface to accommodate validation of Protobuf messages generated by other implementations. Specifically I'd like to implement support for protokt.
                Problem it solves or use case:
                It would be nice to write another implementation of protovalidate for a JVM language without having to reinvent the wheel or fork this project.
                Proposed implementation or solution:
                It turns out you don't have to do much to generify this project.
                First you change Value to reference a generic "MessageLike" interface. Then from everything that fails to compile, I derived the exact reflection capabilities protovalidate-java requires of a Protobuf runtime:
                // This name is subject to change.
interface MessageLike {
// Whether a message has a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
boolean hasField(FieldDescriptor field);
// Get the value of a field. This can be a standard field or a member of a oneof.
Value getField(FieldDescriptor field);
}

                Separately the Value interface changes slightly. Sometimes we need to extract the JVM value to verify things in Java code (e.g. Any type URL or enum value); sometimes we need the binding value that the runtime under test should provide to CEL's runtime.
                Contribution:
                I have already implemented this proposal[1]. My fork passes all conformance tests for protobuf-java and protokt[2]. The branch is a bit sloppy since it's a POC, but the conformance tests can be swapped from the Java implementation to the protokt implementation by changing the main class of the conformance:conformance task from Main to Main2.
                https://github.com/andrewparmet/protovalidate-protokt/pull/9
                If my changes to the various evaluator classes can be merged here, then I can write a spinoff library that reuses the majority of the implementation code in this project to validate Protokt messages.
                As a bonus it would be great to be able to generate the conformance test cases using the protobuf-gradle-plugin from a JAR on Maven Central so I don't have to invoke buf export. Maybe protovalidate-java can bundle them. Protokt manually syncs its conformance proto file with the main protobuf repo so buf export is still better on the whole.
                Thanks!
                [1] The implementation requires a few changes to protokt found on this branch. merged
                [2] With a small set of tests that I think are not actually always possible to cover given a proto3-compliant runtime. These are called out in my branch, but I force them to pass anyways since there's no option to skip them like the Protobuf conformance tests and I didn't want to figure out how to make a failure list for the hack into the existing protovalidate-java conformance runtime. fixed
                Additional context:
                I'm the author of protokt and the buf-gradle-plugin.
                Metadata
                Metadata
                Assignees
                Labels
                FeatureNew feature or request
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions