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

Fix: Change uint64 fields in syncv1.proto to uint32 for backwards compatibility #1422

Merged

Conversation

pmarkowsky
Copy link
Contributor

Change the uint64 fields in the syncv1.proto to uint32 to ensure backwards compatibility.

This also updates the SNTSyncEventUpload code to use the uint32 values and updates sync protocol docs to define the integer fields as uint32 explicitly.

Change the uint64 fields in the syncv1.proto to uint32 to ensure backwards compatibility.

This also updates the SNTSyncEventUpload code to use the uint32 values and updates sync protocol docs.
@pmarkowsky
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tested this with Moroz and it works.

@pmarkowsky pmarkowsky marked this pull request as ready for review September 3, 2024 15:38
@pmarkowsky pmarkowsky requested a review from a team as a code owner September 3, 2024 15:38
@russellhancox russellhancox merged commit 9f41fbb into google:main Sep 8, 2024
11 checks passed
@clreinki
Copy link

Thank you so much - 2024.6 and .7 wouldn't work with Moroz and we were pulling our hair out trying to figure out why. So glad this was fixed!

@russellhancox
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @clreinki! I'm sorry to hear you've been having trouble and glad the fix is working.

I'd like to know if there's some way we could have communicated the possibility of this better to have saved you the frustration. We'd mentioned in the release notes for .6 that syncing had been changed and to open an issue if syncing seemed to not work any more. Do you look through the notes when downloading a release? If you do, was this mention not clear enough? Is there a better way we could have called this out that might have helped you?

@clreinki
Copy link

No worries, @russellhancox. Yes, I read the release notes but I was still trying to narrow down whether it was a Santa issue or a Moroz one. We also use a customized build of Moroz so had to make sure our modifications weren't the issue. Really, it boils down to we hadn't figured out where the failure was occurring yet. I just didn't wanna be that person who opens a issue without all the relevant info!

@russellhancox
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for the update, that makes sense.

I just didn't wanna be that person who opens a issue without all the relevant info!

We appreciate that attitude 😄

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