juno-network 0.6.0 → 0.8.0

package/src/codegen/google/protobuf/field_mask.ts

@@ -1,459 +0,0 @@
-import * as _m0 from "protobufjs/minimal";
-import { DeepPartial } from "@osmonauts/helpers";
-/**
- * `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 duplicated or unmappable.
- */
-
-export interface FieldMask {
-  /** The set of field mask paths. */
-  paths: string[];
-}
-/**
- * `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 duplicated or unmappable.
- */
-
-export interface FieldMaskSDKType {
-  /** The set of field mask paths. */
-  paths: string[];
-}
-
-function createBaseFieldMask(): FieldMask {
-  return {
-    paths: []
-  };
-}
-
-export const FieldMask = {
-  encode(message: FieldMask, writer: _m0.Writer = _m0.Writer.create()): _m0.Writer {
-    for (const v of message.paths) {
-      writer.uint32(10).string(v!);
-    }
-
-    return writer;
-  },
-
-  decode(input: _m0.Reader | Uint8Array, length?: number): FieldMask {
-    const reader = input instanceof _m0.Reader ? input : new _m0.Reader(input);
-    let end = length === undefined ? reader.len : reader.pos + length;
-    const message = createBaseFieldMask();
-
-    while (reader.pos < end) {
-      const tag = reader.uint32();
-
-      switch (tag >>> 3) {
-        case 1:
-          message.paths.push(reader.string());
-          break;
-
-        default:
-          reader.skipType(tag & 7);
-          break;
-      }
-    }
-
-    return message;
-  },
-
-  fromPartial(object: DeepPartial<FieldMask>): FieldMask {
-    const message = createBaseFieldMask();
-    message.paths = object.paths?.map(e => e) || [];
-    return message;
-  }
-
-};