package test

Get desktop application:
View/edit binary Protocol Buffers messages

Used in: ProcessFile

• bool debug_mode = 1

• string file = 2

Used in: DuplicateEnclosingFlagName, DuplicateSubcommandFields, FlagsWithIncorrectExtension, FlagsWithSubcommandMissingHelp, FlagsWithSubcommandMissingName, IncorrectOneofName, SimpleSubcommandSucceed, SubcommandFlagExtension, SubcommandFlagsWithoutExtension, SubcommandSubMessage1, SubcommandSubMessage2

• int32 other_flag = 1

• string flag = 1

• string other = 2

• oneof subcommand

  • SubcommandSubMessage1 sub1 = 3

  • SubcommandSubMessage2 sub2 = 4

• int32 other_flag = 1

• oneof subcommand

  • BuildFlag build = 2

  • InfoFlag info_subcommand = 3

• string s1 = 1

• string s2 = 2

• string s = 1

• string ss = 2

• bool duplicate = 3

• bool b = 4

• oneof subcommand

  • BuildFlag build = 1

  • InfoFlag info = 2

• string foo = 1

• string _s = 2

• bool bar = 3

• int32 baz = 4

• optional google.protobuf.Duration duration = 5

• bool b = 1

• oneof subcommand

  • BuildFlag build = 2

  • InfoFlag info_subcommand = 3

• oneof subcommand

  • BuildFlag build = 1

  • InfoFlag info_subcommand = 2

• oneof subcommand

  • BuildFlag build = 1

  • InfoFlag info_subcommand = 2

This message is illegal because we expect that users will define fields with 'stout.v1.argument' extension of the type 'string'.

• int32 num = 1

Illegal setup where the user doesn't define name option.

• string str = 1

Illegal setup where the user doesn't define help option.

• string str = 1

• oneof other

  • BuildFlag build = 1

  • InfoFlag info_subcommand = 2

Used in: DuplicateEnclosingFlagName, DuplicateSubcommandFields, FlagsWithIncorrectExtension, FlagsWithSubcommandMissingHelp, FlagsWithSubcommandMissingName, IncorrectOneofName, SimpleSubcommandSucceed, SubcommandFlagExtension, SubcommandFlagsWithoutExtension, SubcommandSubMessage1, SubcommandSubMessage2

• string info = 1

• string s = 1

• string s = 1

• oneof subcommand

  • BuildFile build = 1

  • Rename rename = 2

This message demonstrates that if users define positional arguments with random field index order - anyway the order of positional arguments that we expect from the command line will be the same as the order in which they are defined in protobuf message.

• string str1 = 2

• string str2 = 3

• string str3 = 1

Used in: ProcessFile

• string cur_file_name = 1

• string new_file_name = 2

• bool b = 1

• oneof subcommand

  • BuildFlag build = 2

  • InfoFlag info_subcommand = 3

Used in: TopLevelArguments

• int32 sub1_flag = 1

• string sub1_pos_arg = 2

Used in: TopLevelArguments

• int32 sub2_flag = 1

• string sub2_pos_arg = 2

• oneof subcommand

  • BuildFlag build = 1

  • InfoFlag info_subcommand = 2

• bool b = 1

• oneof subcommand

  • BuildFlag build = 2

  • InfoFlag info_subcommand = 3

Used in: ComplicatedSubcommandMessage

• string another = 1

• int32 num = 2

• oneof subcommand

  • BuildFlag build = 3

  • InfoFlag info_subcommand = 4

Used in: ComplicatedSubcommandMessage

• string s = 1

• oneof subcommand

  • BuildFlag build = 2

  • InfoFlag info_subcommand = 3

More complicated case for positional arguments.

• int32 top_level_flag1 = 1

• string top_level_flag2 = 2

• string top_pos_arg1 = 3

• string top_pos_arg2 = 4

• oneof subcommand

  • Subcommand1 sub1 = 5

  • Subcommand2 sub2 = 6