(Contribution) May I add service blocks to protobuf contracts?

[mberdev]

After looking at all .proto files of DFHack, which are written in proto2 syntax, I noticed that the RPC functions only appear as comments :

// RPC GetSideMenu : EmptyMessage -> SidebarState

That's nice, but for automation purposes I'd like something more reliable. Instead of comments, I would like actual service blocks, as allowed by the proto2 syntax:

service MyService { rpc GetSideMenu (EmptyMessage) returns (SidebarState); }

May I create a Pull Request with that change? any objections ? Any blocker? It's literally just a conversion task, there's no caveat.

[plule]

Hi, I'm no core dev of dfhack, just maintaining a rust client lib, and it would be a nice to have

[ab9rf]

I will point out that we use a very old version of protobuf. It's been so long that I cannot find documentation as to what version we are actually using, but it was added to DFHack's source repository in 2012 and has not been updated since (other than local changes required to keep it working with modern toolchains), so it's around 14 years old now. We tried updating it back in 2022, but that effort ran into a roadblock and it was abandoned.

As a result, you must limit whatever you use protobuf for to whatever is supported in this version (which I do not know), or alternatively provide a PR that updates protobuf to a modern version without breaking any existing uses.

I am not remotely an expert at protobuf, but the proposal in general sounds like a good idea and I won't block it if it doesn't break any existing uses, or if any such breakage is dealt with. Be aware that there are likely third party users of these interfaces, so any changes that might break a third party will need to be documented so that third party has sufficient warning of the change and guidance in how to adjust. Basically what I'm asking for is language I can put into release announcements and into our documentation to refer people to when they run into a problem.

[mberdev]

That's exactly why I want to add a service block: It "enhances" the protobuf for free, but doesn't break the rest of the file.

If I change something, I might have to do a small touchup to remotecontrolreader 's AdventureControl.proto (used by Armok Vision) because there's a case of missing import in the .proto file, which makes it unfit for autogeneration. If I change it then I'll make sure Armok Vision still works.

[mberdev]

About the 2012 commit : Is this autogeneration tool meant to generate C from .proto, or .proto from C?

[ab9rf]

About the 2012 commit : Is this autogeneration tool meant to generate C from .proto, or .proto from C?

I haven't the slightest clue; all I have to go on is what's in the commit itself, and it's likely you can interpret that as well as I can, probably better since you almost certainly know protobuf better than I do.