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

Upgrade protobuf messages to 2.6 for python3 compatibility #12

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 1, 2014

Conversation

virtuald
Copy link
Contributor

Updated protobuf messages were generated using protoc 2.6. I had to modify the messages to use relative imports -- but that's pretty minor. Internal changes to the library means that the messages are not compatible with older versions of protobuf.

One more thing required to finish out #6 -- namely, protobuf needs a python 3 compatible release. I have a patched version.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same when pulling a1ab6ef on virtuald:protobuf26 into 81c981c on jpieper:develop.

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

FYI: The current trunk of protobuf works without patching. However, the package in pypi is still not updated.

@jpieper
Copy link
Owner

jpieper commented Dec 1, 2014

Were these updated definitions created just by running "make update-gazebo" with the newer protobuf installed?

They do appear to work on my machine in python2 at least.

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

virtuald commented Dec 1, 2014

Haha, I didn't even notice the Makefile. However, it was generated using the same mechanism, and then the relative imports were modified as I noted above. Protobuf cannot generate relative imports, see protocolbuffers/protobuf#90

jpieper added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2014
Upgrade protobuf messages to 2.6 for python3 compatibility
@jpieper jpieper merged commit 4257423 into jpieper:develop Dec 1, 2014
@virtuald virtuald deleted the protobuf26 branch December 1, 2014 03:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants