@vectora/contracts 1.0.0

package/gen/ts/fleet-unit-v1.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+// Code generated by protoc-gen-ts_proto. DO NOT EDIT.
+// versions:
+//   protoc-gen-ts_proto  v2.11.2
+//   protoc               v3.21.12
+// source: fleet-unit-v1.proto
+
+/* eslint-disable */
+
+export const protobufPackage = "unit.v1";

package/gen/ts/google/protobuf/field_mask.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,295 @@
+// Code generated by protoc-gen-ts_proto. DO NOT EDIT.
+// versions:
+//   protoc-gen-ts_proto  v2.11.2
+//   protoc               v3.21.12
+// source: google/protobuf/field_mask.proto
+
+/* eslint-disable */
+import { BinaryReader, BinaryWriter } from "@bufbuild/protobuf/wire";
+
+export const protobufPackage = "google.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.
+ */
+export interface FieldMask {
+  /** The set of field mask paths. */
+  paths: string[];
+}
+
+function createBaseFieldMask(): FieldMask {
+  return { paths: [] };
+}
+
+export const FieldMask: MessageFns<FieldMask> & FieldMaskWrapperFns = {
+  encode(message: FieldMask, writer: BinaryWriter = new BinaryWriter()): BinaryWriter {
+    for (const v of message.paths) {
+      writer.uint32(10).string(v!);
+    }
+    return writer;
+  },
+
+  decode(input: BinaryReader | Uint8Array, length?: number): FieldMask {
+    const reader = input instanceof BinaryReader ? input : new BinaryReader(input);
+    const end = length === undefined ? reader.len : reader.pos + length;
+    const message = createBaseFieldMask();
+    while (reader.pos < end) {
+      const tag = reader.uint32();
+      switch (tag >>> 3) {
+        case 1: {
+          if (tag !== 10) {
+            break;
+          }
+
+          message.paths.push(reader.string());
+          continue;
+        }
+      }
+      if ((tag & 7) === 4 || tag === 0) {
+        break;
+      }
+      reader.skip(tag & 7);
+    }
+    return message;
+  },
+
+  create<I extends Exact<DeepPartial<FieldMask>, I>>(base?: I): FieldMask {
+    return FieldMask.fromPartial(base ?? ({} as any));
+  },
+  fromPartial<I extends Exact<DeepPartial<FieldMask>, I>>(object: I): FieldMask {
+    const message = createBaseFieldMask();
+    message.paths = object.paths?.map((e) => e) || [];
+    return message;
+  },
+
+  wrap(paths: string[]): FieldMask {
+    const result = createBaseFieldMask();
+    result.paths = paths;
+    return result;
+  },
+
+  unwrap(message: FieldMask): string[] {
+    return message.paths;
+  },
+};
+
+type Builtin = Date | Function | Uint8Array | string | number | boolean | undefined;
+
+export type DeepPartial<T> = T extends Builtin ? T
+  : T extends globalThis.Array<infer U> ? globalThis.Array<DeepPartial<U>>
+  : T extends ReadonlyArray<infer U> ? ReadonlyArray<DeepPartial<U>>
+  : T extends {} ? { [K in keyof T]?: DeepPartial<T[K]> }
+  : Partial<T>;
+
+type KeysOfUnion<T> = T extends T ? keyof T : never;
+export type Exact<P, I extends P> = P extends Builtin ? P
+  : P & { [K in keyof P]: Exact<P[K], I[K]> } & { [K in Exclude<keyof I, KeysOfUnion<P>>]: never };
+
+export interface MessageFns<T> {
+  encode(message: T, writer?: BinaryWriter): BinaryWriter;
+  decode(input: BinaryReader | Uint8Array, length?: number): T;
+  create<I extends Exact<DeepPartial<T>, I>>(base?: I): T;
+  fromPartial<I extends Exact<DeepPartial<T>, I>>(object: I): T;
+}
+
+export interface FieldMaskWrapperFns {
+  wrap(paths: string[]): FieldMask;
+  unwrap(message: FieldMask): string[];
+}