Stephanie DiBenedetto
Stephanie DiBenedetto
This was fixed internally in cl/405686382. We should port it to open source.
Need to get conformance tests running in the new repo.
Yes, the API is a bit misleading and we should clean this up.
This is a known issue. There hasn't been a huge investment in performance in the binary decoder. The insight of focusing on the 32-bit varints is a good place to...
We didn't use to support this correctly. Our parsing code did not support receiving either option and instead only went by the annotation.
This is a limitation of the current API. We're thinking of introducing an abstraction for 64 bit integers to deal with this.
I'm having trouble reproducing the issue. I get: ``` date: 2022-02-01T00:00:00.000Z timestamp: 1643673600 0 { seconds: 1643673600, nanos: 0 } date: 2022-02-02T00:00:00.000Z timestamp: 1643760000 0 { seconds: 1643760000, nanos: 0...
I don't think `import { Timestamp } from "google-protobuf/google/protobuf/timestamp_pb";` works with plain google-protobuf. Our project doesn't officially support ES modules; just CommonJS. Could there be any tooling on your side...
Are you using plain node or ts-node? And what version? Also, are you using any node flags related module loading? Particularly, experimental ones.
@curtgrimes Thank you for the repro. This helps explain why I was having trouble repro'ing with a trivial usage. Do you have an example of a something using an older...