google-cloud-cloud_controls_partner-v1beta 0.3.0 → 0.4.0

data/proto_docs/google/protobuf/field_mask.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
+# frozen_string_literal: true
+
+# Copyright 2025 Google LLC
+#
+# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
+# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
+# You may obtain a copy of the License at
+#
+#     https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+#
+# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+# limitations under the License.
+
+# Auto-generated by gapic-generator-ruby. DO NOT EDIT!
+
+
+module Google
+  module Protobuf
+    # `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 unmappable.
+    # @!attribute [rw] paths
+    #   @return [::Array<::String>]
+    #     The set of field mask paths.
+    class FieldMask
+      include ::Google::Protobuf::MessageExts
+      extend ::Google::Protobuf::MessageExts::ClassMethods
+    end
+  end
+end

metadata

@@ -1,14 +1,13 @@
 --- !ruby/object:Gem::Specification
 name: google-cloud-cloud_controls_partner-v1beta
 version: !ruby/object:Gem::Version
-  version: 0.3.0
+  version: 0.4.0
 platform: ruby
 authors:
 - Google LLC
-autorequire: 
 bindir: bin
 cert_chain: []
-date: 2024-12-10 00:00:00.000000000 Z
+date: 2025-01-29 00:00:00.000000000 Z
 dependencies:
 - !ruby/object:Gem::Dependency
   name: gapic-common
@@ -16,7 +15,7 @@ dependencies:
     requirements:
     - - ">="
       - !ruby/object:Gem::Version
-        version: 0.24.0
+        version: 0.25.0
     - - "<"
       - !ruby/object:Gem::Version
         version: 2.a
@@ -26,7 +25,7 @@ dependencies:
     requirements:
     - - ">="
       - !ruby/object:Gem::Version
-        version: 0.24.0
+        version: 0.25.0
     - - "<"
       - !ruby/object:Gem::Version
         version: 2.a
@@ -103,13 +102,14 @@ files:
 - proto_docs/google/cloud/cloudcontrolspartner/v1beta/partners.rb
 - proto_docs/google/cloud/cloudcontrolspartner/v1beta/violations.rb
 - proto_docs/google/protobuf/duration.rb
+- proto_docs/google/protobuf/empty.rb
+- proto_docs/google/protobuf/field_mask.rb
 - proto_docs/google/protobuf/timestamp.rb
 - proto_docs/google/type/interval.rb
 homepage: https://github.com/googleapis/google-cloud-ruby
 licenses:
 - Apache-2.0
 metadata: {}
-post_install_message: 
 rdoc_options: []
 require_paths:
 - lib
@@ -117,15 +117,14 @@ required_ruby_version: !ruby/object:Gem::Requirement
   requirements:
   - - ">="
     - !ruby/object:Gem::Version
-      version: '2.7'
+      version: '3.0'
 required_rubygems_version: !ruby/object:Gem::Requirement
   requirements:
   - - ">="
     - !ruby/object:Gem::Version
       version: '0'
 requirements: []
-rubygems_version: 3.5.23
-signing_key: 
+rubygems_version: 3.6.2
 specification_version: 4
 summary: Provides insights about your customers and their Assured Workloads based
   on your Sovereign Controls by Partners offering.