Proto types #116
Draft
Proto types #116
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
These are vendored from https://github.com/google/cel-spec, proto/cel/expr/ at ed066e332b7acc3dbf68e65e0001061539d25e83. The other files only contain messages for interacting with a CEL interpreter, but don't represent ASTs.
This adds the cel_interpreter::proto mod, exposing the cel.expr protobuf types, as well as the necessary plumbing to generate the type definitions at compile time. The outcome can be best explored by invoking `cargo doc` with the `proto` feature enabled, and starting at the `cel_interpreter::proto::[Parsed]Expr` struct.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Based off of #81 . I made an attempt at some initial conversion to/from proto expressions. Does the expression IDs exist somewhere or are they computable as of now? I skipped it for now. I'll try to pick it up at a later point, but please feel free to pick it up from here!
I think what "should" be implemented is actually to/from
ParsedExprandCheckedExprbut sinceExpris the underlying type, I went for that to begin with.