Nested messages conflicts about protolock

[celrenheit]

Yep sorry for the confusion.
I'll try to have a look into it whenever I have time

[nilslice]

Interesting -- thank you for reporting! This is definitely a bug. I will need to update the tests to contain nested messages. Can I ask, what did you expect the output to be?

You mention:

The following example should trigger a conflict:

What would you expect the conflict to be?

[celrenheit]

I expected it to not have a conflict

[nilslice]

@celrenheit - ok, perfect, that's what I figured but was confused (should vs. shouldn't in your comment).

Is this something you'd like to try fixing? No problem if not, just didn't want to duplicate efforts.
Thanks again!

[nilslice]

@celrenheit - would you please try #16? I believe it should fix this issue.

[nilslice]

I've tested this internally enough to feel confident in the fix. @celrenheit - I'm going to merge, but if you get around to it, please update your binary and test as well. I'd would appreciate it!

[celrenheit]

This fixed the issue but by ignoring nested messages.
I've submitted PR #17 which also checks to not reuse reserved fields in nested messages.