Skip to content

Conversation

@statico
Copy link

@statico statico commented Aug 13, 2025

Hi there! We'd like to use this project, but we're using edition 2023 protobufs and this project didn't seem to be compatible. I asked Claude Code to add compatibility.


  • Add FEATURE_SUPPORTS_EDITIONS flag to protoc plugin for edition compatibility
  • Create new edition_2023_test.proto with edition = "2023" syntax
  • Add edition_2023_test.go to verify field presence semantics work correctly
  • Generate edition 2023 compatible MCP handlers with pointer-based string fields
  • Maintain backward compatibility with existing proto2/proto3 files

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

@statico
Copy link
Author

statico commented Aug 18, 2025

FWIW, looking at this now, the tests are probably overkill and I could easily remove them.

@birdayz
Copy link
Contributor

birdayz commented Aug 19, 2025

thank you! looks good to me, minus the committed binary, could you remove it? let's keep the test

@statico
Copy link
Author

statico commented Aug 19, 2025

@birdayz Done!

@birdayz
Copy link
Contributor

birdayz commented Aug 19, 2025

You will need to rewrite the history to eliminate the binary from git completely, otherwise it will be added with one of the "past" commits.

@statico statico force-pushed the proto-edition-2023 branch from b2f9283 to 71b7350 Compare August 19, 2025 22:05
@statico
Copy link
Author

statico commented Aug 19, 2025

@birdayz Done as well!

- Add FEATURE_SUPPORTS_EDITIONS flag to protoc plugin for edition compatibility
- Create new edition_2023_test.proto with edition = "2023" syntax
- Add edition_2023_test.go to verify field presence semantics work correctly
- Generate edition 2023 compatible MCP handlers with pointer-based string fields
- Maintain backward compatibility with existing proto2/proto3 files

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>
@statico statico force-pushed the proto-edition-2023 branch from 71b7350 to 9f01bcb Compare August 19, 2025 22:57
@birdayz
Copy link
Contributor

birdayz commented Aug 20, 2025

last thing remaining:
run

./taskw generate-golden

to correctly generate golden files. :) that will fix the ci error i believe.

@statico
Copy link
Author

statico commented Aug 20, 2025

OK! Sorry for the back and forth. I ran that and ./taskw test continues to pass locally.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants