--- /dev/null
+// Generated by the protocol buffer compiler. DO NOT EDIT!
+// source: google/protobuf/field_mask.proto
+
+// This CPP symbol can be defined to use imports that match up to the framework
+// imports needed when using CocoaPods.
+#if !defined(GPB_USE_PROTOBUF_FRAMEWORK_IMPORTS)
+ #define GPB_USE_PROTOBUF_FRAMEWORK_IMPORTS 0
+#endif
+
+#if GPB_USE_PROTOBUF_FRAMEWORK_IMPORTS
+ #import <Protobuf/GPBDescriptor.h>
+ #import <Protobuf/GPBMessage.h>
+ #import <Protobuf/GPBRootObject.h>
+#else
+ #import "GPBDescriptor.h"
+ #import "GPBMessage.h"
+ #import "GPBRootObject.h"
+#endif
+
+#if GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_OBJC_VERSION < 30002
+#error This file was generated by a newer version of protoc which is incompatible with your Protocol Buffer library sources.
+#endif
+#if 30002 < GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_OBJC_MIN_SUPPORTED_VERSION
+#error This file was generated by an older version of protoc which is incompatible with your Protocol Buffer library sources.
+#endif
+
+// @@protoc_insertion_point(imports)
+
+#pragma clang diagnostic push
+#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations"
+
+CF_EXTERN_C_BEGIN
+
+NS_ASSUME_NONNULL_BEGIN
+
+#pragma mark - GPBFieldMaskRoot
+
+/**
+ * Exposes the extension registry for this file.
+ *
+ * The base class provides:
+ * @code
+ * + (GPBExtensionRegistry *)extensionRegistry;
+ * @endcode
+ * which is a @c GPBExtensionRegistry that includes all the extensions defined by
+ * this file and all files that it depends on.
+ **/
+@interface GPBFieldMaskRoot : GPBRootObject
+@end
+
+#pragma mark - GPBFieldMask
+
+typedef GPB_ENUM(GPBFieldMask_FieldNumber) {
+ GPBFieldMask_FieldNumber_PathsArray = 1,
+};
+
+/**
+ * `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, the existing
+ * repeated values in the target resource will be overwritten by the new values.
+ * 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 the existing sub-message in the target resource is
+ * overwritten. Given the target message:
+ *
+ * f {
+ * b {
+ * d : 1
+ * x : 2
+ * }
+ * c : 1
+ * }
+ *
+ * And an update message:
+ *
+ * f {
+ * b {
+ * d : 10
+ * }
+ * }
+ *
+ * then if the field mask is:
+ *
+ * paths: "f.b"
+ *
+ * then the result will be:
+ *
+ * f {
+ * b {
+ * d : 10
+ * }
+ * c : 1
+ * }
+ *
+ * However, if the update mask was:
+ *
+ * paths: "f.b.d"
+ *
+ * then the result would be:
+ *
+ * f {
+ * b {
+ * d : 10
+ * x : 2
+ * }
+ * c : 1
+ * }
+ *
+ * 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.
+ **/
+@interface GPBFieldMask : GPBMessage
+
+/** The set of field mask paths. */
+@property(nonatomic, readwrite, strong, null_resettable) NSMutableArray<NSString*> *pathsArray;
+/** The number of items in @c pathsArray without causing the array to be created. */
+@property(nonatomic, readonly) NSUInteger pathsArray_Count;
+
+@end
+
+NS_ASSUME_NONNULL_END
+
+CF_EXTERN_C_END
+
+#pragma clang diagnostic pop
+
+// @@protoc_insertion_point(global_scope)
fnp / wl-app.git / blobdiff