[VOL-2235] Mocks and interfaces for rw-core
This update consists of mocks that are used by the rw-core
during unit testing. It also includes interfaces used for unit
tests.
Change-Id: I20ca1455c358113c3aa897acc6355e0ddbc614b7
diff --git a/vendor/google.golang.org/genproto/protobuf/field_mask/field_mask.pb.go b/vendor/google.golang.org/genproto/protobuf/field_mask/field_mask.pb.go
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a0889f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vendor/google.golang.org/genproto/protobuf/field_mask/field_mask.pb.go
@@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
+// Code generated by protoc-gen-go. DO NOT EDIT.
+// source: google/protobuf/field_mask.proto
+
+package field_mask
+
+import (
+ fmt "fmt"
+ math "math"
+
+ proto "github.com/golang/protobuf/proto"
+)
+
+// Reference imports to suppress errors if they are not otherwise used.
+var _ = proto.Marshal
+var _ = fmt.Errorf
+var _ = math.Inf
+
+// This is a compile-time assertion to ensure that this generated file
+// is compatible with the proto package it is being compiled against.
+// A compilation error at this line likely means your copy of the
+// proto package needs to be updated.
+const _ = proto.ProtoPackageIsVersion3 // please upgrade the proto package
+
+// `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, new values will
+// be appended to the existing repeated field in the target resource. 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 new value will be merged into the existing sub-message
+// in the target resource.
+//
+// For example, given the target message:
+//
+// f {
+// b {
+// d: 1
+// x: 2
+// }
+// c: [1]
+// }
+//
+// And an update message:
+//
+// f {
+// b {
+// d: 10
+// }
+// c: [2]
+// }
+//
+// then if the field mask is:
+//
+// paths: ["f.b", "f.c"]
+//
+// then the result will be:
+//
+// f {
+// b {
+// d: 10
+// x: 2
+// }
+// c: [1, 2]
+// }
+//
+// An implementation may provide options to override this default behavior for
+// repeated and message fields.
+//
+// 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.
+//
+// ## Field Mask Verification
+//
+// The implementation of any API method which has a FieldMask type field in the
+// request should verify the included field paths, and return an
+// `INVALID_ARGUMENT` error if any path is duplicated or unmappable.
+type FieldMask struct {
+ // The set of field mask paths.
+ Paths []string `protobuf:"bytes,1,rep,name=paths,proto3" json:"paths,omitempty"`
+ XXX_NoUnkeyedLiteral struct{} `json:"-"`
+ XXX_unrecognized []byte `json:"-"`
+ XXX_sizecache int32 `json:"-"`
+}
+
+func (m *FieldMask) Reset() { *m = FieldMask{} }
+func (m *FieldMask) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
+func (*FieldMask) ProtoMessage() {}
+func (*FieldMask) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) {
+ return fileDescriptor_5158202634f0da48, []int{0}
+}
+
+func (m *FieldMask) XXX_Unmarshal(b []byte) error {
+ return xxx_messageInfo_FieldMask.Unmarshal(m, b)
+}
+func (m *FieldMask) XXX_Marshal(b []byte, deterministic bool) ([]byte, error) {
+ return xxx_messageInfo_FieldMask.Marshal(b, m, deterministic)
+}
+func (m *FieldMask) XXX_Merge(src proto.Message) {
+ xxx_messageInfo_FieldMask.Merge(m, src)
+}
+func (m *FieldMask) XXX_Size() int {
+ return xxx_messageInfo_FieldMask.Size(m)
+}
+func (m *FieldMask) XXX_DiscardUnknown() {
+ xxx_messageInfo_FieldMask.DiscardUnknown(m)
+}
+
+var xxx_messageInfo_FieldMask proto.InternalMessageInfo
+
+func (m *FieldMask) GetPaths() []string {
+ if m != nil {
+ return m.Paths
+ }
+ return nil
+}
+
+func init() {
+ proto.RegisterType((*FieldMask)(nil), "google.protobuf.FieldMask")
+}
+
+func init() { proto.RegisterFile("google/protobuf/field_mask.proto", fileDescriptor_5158202634f0da48) }
+
+var fileDescriptor_5158202634f0da48 = []byte{
+ // 175 bytes of a gzipped FileDescriptorProto
+ 0x1f, 0x8b, 0x08, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x02, 0xff, 0xe2, 0x52, 0x48, 0xcf, 0xcf, 0x4f,
+ 0xcf, 0x49, 0xd5, 0x2f, 0x28, 0xca, 0x2f, 0xc9, 0x4f, 0x2a, 0x4d, 0xd3, 0x4f, 0xcb, 0x4c, 0xcd,
+ 0x49, 0x89, 0xcf, 0x4d, 0x2c, 0xce, 0xd6, 0x03, 0x8b, 0x09, 0xf1, 0x43, 0x54, 0xe8, 0xc1, 0x54,
+ 0x28, 0x29, 0x72, 0x71, 0xba, 0x81, 0x14, 0xf9, 0x26, 0x16, 0x67, 0x0b, 0x89, 0x70, 0xb1, 0x16,
+ 0x24, 0x96, 0x64, 0x14, 0x4b, 0x30, 0x2a, 0x30, 0x6b, 0x70, 0x06, 0x41, 0x38, 0x4e, 0x3d, 0x8c,
+ 0x5c, 0xc2, 0xc9, 0xf9, 0xb9, 0x7a, 0x68, 0x5a, 0x9d, 0xf8, 0xe0, 0x1a, 0x03, 0x40, 0x42, 0x01,
+ 0x8c, 0x51, 0x96, 0x50, 0x25, 0xe9, 0xf9, 0x39, 0x89, 0x79, 0xe9, 0x7a, 0xf9, 0x45, 0xe9, 0xfa,
+ 0xe9, 0xa9, 0x79, 0x60, 0x0d, 0xd8, 0xdc, 0x64, 0x8d, 0x60, 0xfe, 0x60, 0x64, 0x5c, 0xc4, 0xc4,
+ 0xec, 0x1e, 0xe0, 0xb4, 0x8a, 0x49, 0xce, 0x1d, 0x62, 0x48, 0x00, 0x54, 0x83, 0x5e, 0x78, 0x6a,
+ 0x4e, 0x8e, 0x77, 0x5e, 0x7e, 0x79, 0x5e, 0x48, 0x65, 0x41, 0x6a, 0x71, 0x12, 0x1b, 0xd8, 0x24,
+ 0x63, 0x40, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0xff, 0xff, 0xfd, 0xda, 0xb7, 0xa8, 0xed, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
+}