Field behavior documentation
When defining fields in protocol buffers, it is customary to explain to users certain aspects of the field’s behavior (such as whether it is required or optional). Additionally, it can be useful for other tools to understand this behavior (for example, to optimize client library signatures).
Guidance
APIs use the aep.api.field_behavior
annotation to describe well-understood
field behavior, such as a field being required or immutable.
- APIs must apply the
aep.api.field_behavior
annotation on every field on a message or sub-message used in a request. - The annotation must include any google.api.FieldBehavior values that
accurately describe the behavior of the field.
FIELD_BEHAVIOR_UNSPECIFIED
must not be used.
- APIs must at minimum use one of
REQUIRED
,OPTIONAL
, orOUTPUT_ONLY
.
field behavior of nested messages
aep.api.field_behavior
annotations on a nested message are independent of the
annotations of the parent.
For example, a nested message can have a field behavior of REQUIRED
while the
parent field can be OPTIONAL
:
In the case above, if a title
is specified, the text
field is required.
Vocabulary
Identifier
The use of IDENTIFIER
indicates that a field within a resource message is
used to identify the resource. It must be attached to the path
field and
must not be attached to any other field (see fields representing resource
paths).
The IDENTIFIER
value conveys that the field is not accepted as input (i.e.
OUTPUT_ONLY
) in the context of a create method, while also being considered
IMMUTABLE
and accepted as input for mutation methods that accept the resource
as the primary input e.g. Standard Update.
This annotation must not be applied to references to other resources within a message.
Immutable
The use of IMMUTABLE
indicates that a field on a resource cannot be changed
after it’s creation. This can apply to either fields that are input or outputs,
required or optional.
When a service receives an immutable field in an update request (or similar),
even if included in the update mask, the service should ignore the field if
the value matches, but should error with INVALID_ARGUMENT
if a change is
requested.
Potential use cases for immutable fields (this is not an exhaustive list) are:
- Attributes of resources that are not modifiable for the lifetime of the application (e.g. a disk type).
Input only
The use of INPUT_ONLY
indicates that the field is provided in requests and
that the corresponding field will not be included in output.
Additionally, a field should only be described as input only if it is a
field in a resource message or a field of a message included within a resource
message. Notably, fields in request messages (a message which only ever acts as
an argument to an RPC, with a name usually ending in Request
) should not
be described as input only because this is already implied.
Potential use cases for input only fields (this is not an exhaustive list) are:
- The
ttl
field as described in AEP-214.
Optional
The use of OPTIONAL
indicates that a field is not required.
A field may be described as optional if it is a field on a request message
(a message that is an argument to an RPC, usually ending in Request
), or a
field on a submessage.
Output only
The use of OUTPUT_ONLY
indicates that the field is provided in responses, but
that including the field in a message in a request does nothing (the server
must clear out any value in this field and must not throw an error as a
result of the presence of a value in this field on input). Similarly, services
must ignore the presence of output only fields in update field masks (see:
AEP-161).
Additionally, a field should only be described as output only if it is a
field in a resource message, or a field of a message farther down the tree.
Notably, fields in response messages (a message which only ever acts as a
return value to an RPC, usually ending in Response
) should not be
described as output only because this is already implied.
Output only fields may be set to empty values if appropriate to the API.
Potential use cases for output only fields (this is not an exhaustive list) are:
- Create or update timestamps.
- Derived or structured information based on original user input.
- Properties of a resource assigned by the service which can not be altered.
Required
The use of REQUIRED
indicates that the field must be present (and set to
a non-empty value) on the request.
A field should only be described as required if either:
- It is a field on a resource that a user provides somewhere as input.
- It is a field on a request message (a message that is an argument to an RPC,
with a name usually ending in
Request
). In this case, a value must be provided as part of the request, and failure to do so must cause an error (usuallyINVALID_ARGUMENT
).
Fields should not be described as required in order to signify:
- A field which will always be present in a response.
- A field which is conditionally required in some situations.
- A field on any message (including messages that are resources) which is never used as user input.
Unordered List
The use of UNORDERED_LIST
on a repeated field of a resource indicates that
the service does not guarantee the order of the items in the list.
A field should be described as an unordered list if the service does not guarantee that the order of the elements in the list will match the order that the user sent, including a situation where the service will sort the list on the user’s behalf.
Backwards compatibility
Adding or changing aep.api.field_behavior
values can represent a semantic
change in the API that is perceived as incompatible for existing clients. The
following are examples of backwards incompatible changes with
aep.api.field_behavior
:
- Adding
REQUIRED
to an existing field previously consideredOPTIONAL
(implicitly or otherwise) - Adding a new field annotated as
REQUIRED
to an existing request message - Adding
OUTPUT_ONLY
to an existing field previously accepted as input - Adding
INPUT_ONLY
to an existing field previously emitted as output - Adding
IMMUTABLE
to an existing field previously considered mutable - Removing
OUTPUT_ONLY
from an existing field previously ignored as input - Removing
IDENTIFIER
from an existing field.
There are some changes that are backwards compatible, which are as follows:
- Adding
OPTIONAL
to an existing field - Adding
IDENTIFIER
to an existingpath
field - Changing from
REQUIRED
toOPTIONAL
on an existing field - Changing from
OUTPUT_ONLY
and/orIMMUTABLE
toIDENTIFIER
on an existing field - Removing
REQUIRED
from an existing field - Removing
INPUT_ONLY
from an existing field previously excluded in responses - Removing
IMMUTABLE
from an existing field previously considered immutable
Rationale
Identifier field behavior
Resource paths, the primary identifiers for any compliant resource, are never
fully constructed by the user on create. Such fields are typically assigned
OUTPUT_ONLY
field behavior. They are, however, also often consumed as the
primary identifier in scenarios where the resource itself is the primary
request payload. Such fields could not be considered OUTPUT_ONLY
.
Furthermore, in mutation requests, like Standard Update, the resource path as
the primary identifier cannot be changed in place. Such fields are typically
assigned IMMUTABLE
field behavior. These conflicting and context-dependent
field behaviors meant that a new value was necessary to single out and convey
the behavior of the resource path field.
Required set of annotations
A field used in a request message must be either an input or an output.
In the case of an output, the OUTPUT_ONLY
annotation is sufficient.
In the case of an input, a field is either required or optional, and therefore
should have at least the REQUIRED
or OPTIONAL
annotation, respectively.
Only providing INPUT_ONLY
does not convey the necessity of the field, so
specifying either REQUIRED
or OPTIONAL
is still necessary.
Requiring field behavior
By including the field behavior annotation for each field, the overall behavior that the resource exhibits is more clearly defined. Clearly defined field behavior improves programmatic clients and user understanding.
Requiring the annotation also forces the API author to explicitly consider the behavior when initially authoring of the API.
Modifying field behavior after initial authoring can result in backwards-incompatible changes in clients. For example, making an optional field required results in backwards-incompatible changes in the method signature of an RPC or a resource in a Declarative client. See the Backwards compatibility section for more detailed compatibility guidance.
Changelog
- 2024-04-17: Added initial guidance.