third_party/protobuf: Update to HEAD (83d681ee2c)

third_party/protobuf/objectivec/google/protobuf/FieldMask.pbobjc.h

Index: third_party/protobuf/objectivec/google/protobuf/FieldMask.pbobjc.h
diff --git a/third_party/protobuf/objectivec/google/protobuf/FieldMask.pbobjc.h b/third_party/protobuf/objectivec/google/protobuf/FieldMask.pbobjc.h
index 73cbd8a58508f7254558c655a8f0e75aa6101fc6..07e60818522d01360790647903afc78cb9d7cb03 100644
--- a/third_party/protobuf/objectivec/google/protobuf/FieldMask.pbobjc.h
+++ b/third_party/protobuf/objectivec/google/protobuf/FieldMask.pbobjc.h
@@ -1,10 +1,23 @@
 // Generated by the protocol buffer compiler.  DO NOT EDIT!
 // source: google/protobuf/field_mask.proto
 
-#import "GPBProtocolBuffers.h"
+// 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/GPBProtocolBuffers.h>
+#else
+ #import "GPBProtocolBuffers.h"
+#endif
 
-#if GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_OBJC_GEN_VERSION != 30001
-#error This file was generated by a different version of protoc which is incompatible with your Protocol Buffer library sources.
+#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)
@@ -18,14 +31,16 @@ 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.
+/**
+ * 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
 
@@ -35,160 +50,214 @@ 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
-/// field mask.
-///
-/// 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.
-///
-/// 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.
+/**
+ * `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.
+ **/
 @interface GPBFieldMask : GPBMessage
 
-/// The set of field mask paths.
+/** 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.
+/** The number of items in @c pathsArray without causing the array to be created. */
 @property(nonatomic, readonly) NSUInteger pathsArray_Count;
 
 @end