Mark plugin as supporting edition 2024#125
Conversation
Ref: #119 (comment) Signed-off-by: Stefan VanBuren <svanburen@buf.build>
| ### Proto Editions Support | ||
|
|
||
| connect-python supports Proto Editions 2023: | ||
| `protoc-gen-connect-python` supports up to [Protobuf Editions](https://protobuf.dev/editions/overview/) 2024: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seemed more right to mention the plugin here, although I know this goes against the consistency of the rest of the README. 🤷
| responseWriter.SetFeatureSupportsEditions( | ||
| descriptorpb.Edition_EDITION_PROTO3, | ||
| descriptorpb.Edition_EDITION_2023, | ||
| descriptorpb.Edition_EDITION_2024, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't we need to keep 2023 here too?
Initially I thought the unit test was somewhat overkill but it alerted me to this so it was pretty good I guess :) Maybe we should t.Run across the multiple editions then
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that tripped me up too, but we're actually declaring the min/max "edition" we support here: https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/bufbuild/protoplugin#ResponseWriter. (I don't love the naming of that method, but I guess it's more obvious once you see the argument names.) So 2023 is implicitly supported.
Even so, I took a shot at making the edition tests table-based and tested both 2023 and 2024, just to have coverage: 91a76cc
Signed-off-by: Stefan VanBuren <svanburen@buf.build>
May as well test each edition. Also, make all subtests parallel. Signed-off-by: Stefan VanBuren <svanburen@buf.build>
2 participants
Ref: #119 (comment)