Custom options are omitted from image json about buf

[bufdev]

Update: it turns out this is possible, and we have code that handles this situation. We'll be adding custom options marshalling for JSON in the near future, and the ability to convert to/from JSON/binary images.

[bufdev]

Hey,

JSON extensions are explicitly impossible:

https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/blob/master/java/util/src/main/java/com/google/protobuf/util/JsonFormat.java#L92

/**
 * Utility classes to convert protobuf messages to/from JSON format. The JSON
 * format follows Proto3 JSON specification and only proto3 features are
 * supported. Proto2 only features (e.g., extensions and unknown fields) will
 * be discarded in the conversion. That is, when converting proto2 messages
 * to JSON format, extensions and unknown fields will be treated as if they
 * do not exist. This applies to proto2 messages embedded in proto3 messages
 * as well.
 */

We'll keep this issue open unitl we update the documentation.

In general, as we said, it's much better to use the wire format than the JSON format when storing Protobuf messages. We don't do any comparisons with custom options for breaking change detection, so it is fine to store JSON messages to use in the breaking change detector, but for other use we would recommend you use the wire format.

[ChrisPenner]

I think I might be misunderstanding a bit, the official docs say that extensions are explicitly still supported for the purpose of custom options in proto3 (even though that's the only place they're valid). https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#custom_options

Is that not the case?

it's much better to use the wire format than the JSON format when storing Protobuf messages

I'm not actually storing messages, I'm attempting to run custom linting rules on custom options, I was under the impression buf is supposed to help make linting easier, but perhaps I misunderstand buf's goals.

Additional Context from the protocol buffers repo: protocolbuffers/protobuf#1460

[bufdev]

Extensions are supported for custom options for proto3, but are not encoded in JSON - the above link explains this, protobuf’s JSON encoders (which we do not maintain) do not support it.

We don’t explicitly support custom lint rules on purpose, but of course you are able to build off of our FileDescriptorSet output. However, protobuf does not appear to support custom option encoding in JSON.

[mgutz]

That is unfortunate. I'm using buf's JSON output to do code generation and the missing options details is a show stopper. The alternative is to use protobufjs/protobuf.js project's pbjs utility which emits options information.

[bufdev]

We are considering supporting this, stay tuned

[bufdev]

See #87

[bufdev]

Released as 0.18.0.