// Generated by the protocol buffer compiler. DO NOT EDIT! // source: google/protobuf/field_mask.proto // This CPP symbol can be defined to use imports that match up to the framework // imports needed when using CocoaPods. #if !defined(GPB_USE_PROTOBUF_FRAMEWORK_IMPORTS) #define GPB_USE_PROTOBUF_FRAMEWORK_IMPORTS 0 #endif #if GPB_USE_PROTOBUF_FRAMEWORK_IMPORTS #import #import #import #else #import "GPBDescriptor.h" #import "GPBMessage.h" #import "GPBRootObject.h" #endif #if GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_OBJC_VERSION < 30002 #error This file was generated by a newer version of protoc which is incompatible with your Protocol Buffer library sources. #endif #if 30002 < GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_OBJC_MIN_SUPPORTED_VERSION #error This file was generated by an older version of protoc which is incompatible with your Protocol Buffer library sources. #endif // @@protoc_insertion_point(imports) #pragma clang diagnostic push #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations" CF_EXTERN_C_BEGIN NS_ASSUME_NONNULL_BEGIN #pragma mark - GPBFieldMaskRoot /** * Exposes the extension registry for this file. * * The base class provides: * @code * + (GPBExtensionRegistry *)extensionRegistry; * @endcode * which is a @c GPBExtensionRegistry that includes all the extensions defined by * this file and all files that it depends on. **/ @interface GPBFieldMaskRoot : GPBRootObject @end #pragma mark - GPBFieldMask typedef GPB_ENUM(GPBFieldMask_FieldNumber) { GPBFieldMask_FieldNumber_PathsArray = 1, }; /** * `FieldMask` represents a set of symbolic field paths, for example: * * paths: "f.a" * paths: "f.b.d" * * Here `f` represents a field in some root message, `a` and `b` * fields in the message found in `f`, and `d` a field found in the * message in `f.b`. * * Field masks are used to specify a subset of fields that should be * returned by a get operation or modified by an update operation. * Field masks also have a custom JSON encoding (see below). * * # Field Masks in Projections * * When used in the context of a projection, a response message or * sub-message is filtered by the API to only contain those fields as * specified in the mask. For example, if the mask in the previous * example is applied to a response message as follows: * * f { * a : 22 * b { * d : 1 * x : 2 * } * y : 13 * } * z: 8 * * The result will not contain specific values for fields x,y and z * (their value will be set to the default, and omitted in proto text * output): * * * f { * a : 22 * b { * d : 1 * } * } * * A repeated field is not allowed except at the last position of a * paths string. * * If a FieldMask object is not present in a get operation, the * operation applies to all fields (as if a FieldMask of all fields * had been specified). * * Note that a field mask does not necessarily apply to the * top-level response message. In case of a REST get operation, the * field mask applies directly to the response, but in case of a REST * list operation, the mask instead applies to each individual message * in the returned resource list. In case of a REST custom method, * other definitions may be used. Where the mask applies will be * clearly documented together with its declaration in the API. In * any case, the effect on the returned resource/resources is required * behavior for APIs. * * # Field Masks in Update Operations * * A field mask in update operations specifies which fields of the * targeted resource are going to be updated. The API is required * to only change the values of the fields as specified in the mask * and leave the others untouched. If a resource is passed in to * describe the updated values, the API ignores the values of all * fields not covered by the mask. * * If a repeated field is specified for an update operation, new values will * be appended to the existing repeated field in the target resource. Note that * a repeated field is only allowed in the last position of a `paths` string. * * If a sub-message is specified in the last position of the field mask for an * update operation, then new value will be merged into the existing sub-message * in the target resource. * * For example, given the target message: * * f { * b { * d: 1 * x: 2 * } * c: [1] * } * * And an update message: * * f { * b { * d: 10 * } * c: [2] * } * * then if the field mask is: * * paths: ["f.b", "f.c"] * * then the result will be: * * f { * b { * d: 10 * x: 2 * } * c: [1, 2] * } * * An implementation may provide options to override this default behavior for * repeated and message fields. * * In order to reset a field's value to the default, the field must * be in the mask and set to the default value in the provided resource. * Hence, in order to reset all fields of a resource, provide a default * instance of the resource and set all fields in the mask, or do * not provide a mask as described below. * * If a field mask is not present on update, the operation applies to * all fields (as if a field mask of all fields has been specified). * Note that in the presence of schema evolution, this may mean that * fields the client does not know and has therefore not filled into * the request will be reset to their default. If this is unwanted * behavior, a specific service may require a client to always specify * a field mask, producing an error if not. * * As with get operations, the location of the resource which * describes the updated values in the request message depends on the * operation kind. In any case, the effect of the field mask is * required to be honored by the API. * * ## Considerations for HTTP REST * * The HTTP kind of an update operation which uses a field mask must * be set to PATCH instead of PUT in order to satisfy HTTP semantics * (PUT must only be used for full updates). * * # JSON Encoding of Field Masks * * In JSON, a field mask is encoded as a single string where paths are * separated by a comma. Fields name in each path are converted * to/from lower-camel naming conventions. * * As an example, consider the following message declarations: * * message Profile { * User user = 1; * Photo photo = 2; * } * message User { * string display_name = 1; * string address = 2; * } * * In proto a field mask for `Profile` may look as such: * * mask { * paths: "user.display_name" * paths: "photo" * } * * In JSON, the same mask is represented as below: * * { * mask: "user.displayName,photo" * } * * # Field Masks and Oneof Fields * * Field masks treat fields in oneofs just as regular fields. Consider the * following message: * * message SampleMessage { * oneof test_oneof { * string name = 4; * SubMessage sub_message = 9; * } * } * * The field mask can be: * * mask { * paths: "name" * } * * Or: * * mask { * paths: "sub_message" * } * * Note that oneof type names ("test_oneof" in this case) cannot be used in * paths. * * ## Field Mask Verification * * The implementation of any API method which has a FieldMask type field in the * request should verify the included field paths, and return an * `INVALID_ARGUMENT` error if any path is duplicated or unmappable. **/ @interface GPBFieldMask : GPBMessage /** The set of field mask paths. */ @property(nonatomic, readwrite, strong, null_resettable) NSMutableArray *pathsArray; /** The number of items in @c pathsArray without causing the array to be created. */ @property(nonatomic, readonly) NSUInteger pathsArray_Count; @end NS_ASSUME_NONNULL_END CF_EXTERN_C_END #pragma clang diagnostic pop // @@protoc_insertion_point(global_scope)