Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

EnumValueOptions type ambiguity after upgrading to 2.5.0 #2272

Open
1 of 8 tasks
alex-zyl opened this issue Jul 30, 2024 · 0 comments
Open
1 of 8 tasks

EnumValueOptions type ambiguity after upgrading to 2.5.0 #2272

alex-zyl opened this issue Jul 30, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@alex-zyl
Copy link

alex-zyl commented Jul 30, 2024

Description

Autogenarated code ends-up with reference conflicts after upgrading to Confluent.SchemaRegistry.Serdes.Protobuf 2.5.0 if EnumValueOptions is declared in proto file.

CS0433 The type 'EnumValueOptions' exists in both 'Google.Protobuf, Version=x, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=x' and 'protobuf-net.Reflection, Version=x, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=x

How to reproduce

Use Confluent.SchemaRegistry.Serdes.Protobuf 2.5.0

Add gRPC tools:

<PackageReference Include="Grpc.Tools" Version="2.65.0">
  <PrivateAssets>all</PrivateAssets>
  <IncludeAssets>runtime; build; native; contentfiles; analyzers; buildtransitive</IncludeAssets>
</PackageReference>

Add proto:

    <Protobuf Include="my.proto" />
syntax = "proto3";

package mds_schema.common.v1;

import "google/protobuf/descriptor.proto";

option java_package = "my.schema;
option java_multiple_files = true;


extend google.protobuf.EnumValueOptions {
  optional string enum_value_str = 300880;
}

Checklist

Please provide the following information:

  • A complete (i.e. we can run it), minimal program demonstrating the problem. No need to supply a project file.
  • Confluent.Kafka nuget version.
  • Apache Kafka version.
  • Client configuration.
  • Operating system.
  • Provide logs (with "debug" : "..." as necessary in configuration).
  • Provide broker log excerpts.
  • Critical issue.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants