You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've encountered an issue with protolock's handling of EnumValueOptions in Protobuf, which seems to be a false positive and might represent bug(s) in the tool.
Specifically, protolock is flagging a camel case naming violation for EnumValueOptions, a built-in Protobuf symbol (documentation). Given that this is a standard, predefined Protobuf entity, it should not be subject to camel case violation checks. This false positive is misleading and contradicts Protobuf's standard naming conventions.
Thanks @miguel-guedes -- I have a short list of little maintenance issues I'll hopefully tackle over the holiday break. Will add this to the list!
I agree this may be a bit over-eager to report as an issue. If you wanted to contribute a fix for this, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll get to it asap :)
I've encountered an issue with protolock's handling of
EnumValueOptions
in Protobuf, which seems to be a false positive and might represent bug(s) in the tool.Specifically, protolock is flagging a camel case naming violation for
EnumValueOptions
, a built-in Protobuf symbol (documentation). Given that this is a standard, predefined Protobuf entity, it should not be subject to camel case violation checks. This false positive is misleading and contradicts Protobuf's standard naming conventions.Example:
Produces:
Only way I found of "resolving" the error was to add a skip hint:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: