Escape extension field names

[jamesray1]

Basically the generated code is using the illegal keyword type in place of a variable representing the type of a Rust enum field.

Rust compiler error in generated proto file:

expected identifier, found keyword `type`

expected identifier, found keyword

rpc_proto.rs(2094, 15): expected identifier, found keyword
pub const type: ::protobuf::ext::ExtFieldOptional<::protobuf::descriptor::EnumValueOptions, ::protobuf::types::ProtobufTypeString> = ::protobuf::ext::ExtFieldOptional

Full line: (pub const type: ::protobuf::ext::ExtFieldOptional<::protobuf::descriptor::EnumValueOptions, ::protobuf::types::ProtobufTypeString> = ::protobuf::ext::ExtFieldOptional { field_number: 51234, phantom: ::std::marker::PhantomData }; line 2094 of the generated file (avaliable here)

Proto file:

syntax = "proto2";

import "google/protobuf/descriptor.proto";

extend google.protobuf.EnumValueOptions {
	optional string type= 51234;
	optional string code= 51235;
  }

package pubsub.pb;

message RPC {
	repeated SubOpts subscriptions = 1;
	repeated Message publish = 2;

	message SubOpts {
		optional bool subscribe = 1; // subscribe or unsubcribe
		optional string topicid = 2;
	}

	optional ControlMessage control = 3;
}

message Message {
	optional bytes from = 1;
	optional bytes data = 2;
	optional bytes seqno = 3;
	repeated string topicIDs = 4;
	// TODO: use
	// optional bytes signature = 5;
	// optional bytes key = 6;
}

message ControlMessage {
	repeated ControlIHave ihave = 1;
	repeated ControlIWant iwant = 2;
	repeated ControlGraft graft = 3;
	repeated ControlPrune prune = 4;
}


// While this may not be strictly necessary as a messageID and a messageHash
// are both strings, it would be useful to differentiate between them in the
// protobuf file, e.g. due to the accessors and for clarity.
enum MessageRep {
	ID = 0 [(type) = "ID", (code) = 'I'];
	HASH = 1 [(type) = "HSH", (code) = 'H'];
}

message ControlIHave {
	optional string topicID = 1;
	// We could have a repeated string messageIDs field and repeated string
	// messageHash field here, which would be better for backwards
	// compatibility, although hiding both behind one type has its advantages.
	repeated MessageRep mRep = 2;
}

message ControlIWant {
	repeated string MessageRep = 1;
}

message ControlGraft {
	optional string topicID = 1;
}

message ControlPrune {
	optional string topicID = 1;
}

message TopicDescriptor {
	optional string name = 1;
	// TODO: use
	// optional AuthOpts auth = 2;
	// optional EncOpts enc = 3;

	// message AuthOpts {
	// 	optional AuthMode mode = 1;
	// 	repeated bytes keys = 2; // root keys to trust

	// 	enum AuthMode {
	// 		NONE = 0; // no authentication, anyone can publish
	// 		KEY = 1; // only messages signed by keys in the topic descriptor are accepted
	// 		WOT = 2; // web of trust, certificates can allow publisher set to grow
	// 	}
	// }

	// message EncOpts {
	// 	optional EncMode mode = 1;
	// 	repeated bytes keyHashes = 2; // the hashes of the shared keys used (salted)

	// 	enum EncMode {
	// 		NONE = 0; // no encryption, anyone can read
	// 		SHAREDKEY = 1; // messages are encrypted with shared key
	// 		WOT = 2; // web of trust, certificates can allow publisher set to grow
	// 	}
	// }
}

[stepancheg]

Published version 2.2.5. Thank you for the bugreport!

[jamesray1]

Thank you!