[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1057970: RFS: protoc-gen-validate



Hi Go team,

I'm looking for a sponsor to upload protoc-gen-validate.

Adding to the protoc-gen-star thread since these packages are related.

Salsa: https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/protoc-gen-validate

Dependency tree:
golang-github-envoyproxy-protoc-gen-validate
└── golang-github-lyft-protoc-gen-star

Autopkgtest: fail (due to missing protoc-gen-star from Debian archive)
Lintian: warn (no-manual-page, spelling-error-in-binary)
Piuparts: pass

Changelog:

protoc-gen-validate (1.0.2-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium

  * Initial release (Closes: #1057970)
  * Disable broken tests that rely on Bazel

Disabled tests:

I've disabled the tests (harness target in Makefile) by adding an empty
override_dh_auto_test to d/r due to them being broken. Explanation below:

(After a few patches,) the Go protobuf files wouldn't build
as they result in the following error:

  panic: proto: file "embed.proto" is already registered
  	previously from: "github.com/envoyproxy/protoc-gen-validate/tests/harness/cases/other_package/go"
  	currently from:  "github.com/envoyproxy/protoc-gen-validate/tests/harness/cases/yet_another_package/go"
  See https://protobuf.dev/reference/go/faq#namespace-conflict

And the cc protobuf files won't build due to needing Bazel to do so. I've tried
to circumvent the need for Bazel and I got close, but I hit a roadblock where
ld can't find types from google::protobuf. I've tried adding libprotobuf-dev to
the B-D field but the problem kept occurring.

My attempts to fix these problems can be found in the fix-tests branch of my
fork of the Salsa repo[1] (didn't want to pollute the go-team repo with badly
written, rushed commits).

--

Feel free to ping me on IRC (as long as my username is there, I'm not online
all the time).

[1]: https://salsa.debian.org/Maytha8/protoc-gen-validate/-/tree/fix-tests

Thanks,
Maytham

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: