Define a go_package for protobuf, rename to a more unique ipns-record.proto

[dereknola]

This is an attempt to address #788

Note in the first commit that I first attempted to follow the online recommendations from:

• https://protobuf.dev/reference/go/go-generated/#package
• https://protobuf.dev/reference/go/faq/
• https://rkiselenko.dev/blog/grpc-in-golang/
  And only define a unique option go_package. This failed to resolve the issue as the go compile still seems to complain and is very upset that the file itself is still called record.proto.

Thus I also renamed to file itself to something less generic. Note that this should not affect external use, as the package is still pb and since #339, external usage of the protobuf is around the ipns package, not the ipns/pb package directly.

If someone with more knowledge around protobuf generation can see a better way to address the issue or improve this PR, please let me know.

[welcome]

Thank you for submitting this PR!
A maintainer will be here shortly to review it.
We are super grateful, but we are also overloaded! Help us by making sure that:

• The context for this PR is clear, with relevant discussion, decisions
  and stakeholders linked/mentioned.

• Your contribution itself is clear (code comments, self-review for the
  rest) and in its best form. Follow the code contribution
  guidelines
  if they apply.

Getting other community members to do a review would be great help too on complex PRs (you can ask in the chats/forums). If you are unsure about something, just leave us a comment.
Next steps:

• A maintainer will triage and assign priority to this PR, commenting on
  any missing things and potentially assigning a reviewer for high
  priority items.

• The PR gets reviews, discussed and approvals as needed.

• The PR is merged by maintainers when it has been approved and comments addressed.

We currently aim to provide initial feedback/triaging within two business days. Please keep an eye on any labelling actions, as these will indicate priorities and status of your contribution.
We are very grateful for your contribution!

[guillaumemichel]

@dereknola does the updated protobuf actually fix your issues?

I suspect that it might be coming from other protobufs where the package name might be too generic such as go-libp2p-kad-dht and go-libp2p-record for example.

I already have opened PRs for these two repos, I'll update the package name, and push to get them merged.

• Move from gogo protobuf libp2p/go-libp2p-kad-dht#975
• Remove gogo protobuf libp2p/go-libp2p-record#60

[dereknola]

@guillaumemichel Yes, the PR I've submitted does fix our issue in K3s. I've got a branch here where the boxo dependecy is replaced with my own version (i.e. this current PR commit). Here is the record grep on that branch

derek@degion:~/rancher/k3s$ grep -rF 'record.proto' vendor/
vendor/go.etcd.io/etcd/server/v3/wal/walpb/record.pb.go:// source: record.proto
vendor/go.etcd.io/etcd/server/v3/wal/walpb/record.pb.go:func init() { proto.RegisterFile("record.proto", fileDescriptor_bf94fd919e302a1d) }
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-record/pb/record.pb.go:// source: record.proto
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-record/pb/record.pb.go:func init() { proto.RegisterFile("record.proto", fileDescriptor_bf94fd919e302a1d) }
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-record/pb/record.proto:// `protoc --gogo_out=. record.proto`
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-kad-dht/pb/dht.proto:import "github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-record/pb/record.proto";
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/p2p/protocol/identify/pb/identify.proto:  // github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/core/peer/pb/peer_record.proto for message definitions.
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/p2p/protocol/identify/pb/identify.pb.go:	// github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/core/peer/pb/peer_record.proto for message definitions.
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/core/peer/pb/peer_record.pb.go:// source: core/peer/pb/peer_record.proto
vendor/github.com/ipfs/boxo/ipns/pb/ipns-record.pb.go:// source: ipns-record.proto
vendor/github.com/ipfs/boxo/ipns/record.go://go:generate protoc -I=pb --go_out=paths=source_relative:pb pb/ipns-record.proto

I appreciate you opening the other two PRs. Its possible that if those got merged it would also fix our issue, I haven't tried replacing those.

[guillaumemichel]

Thanks @dereknola for your contribution!

Looks good to me! What seems to matter is the go_package option, filename shouldn't create conflict, though renaming it to ipns-record.proto adds clarity 👍🏻

TIL: https://protobuf.dev/programming-guides/proto3/#packages

In Go, the package directive is ignored, and the generated .pb.go file is in the package named after the corresponding go_proto_library Bazel rule. For open source projects, you must provide either a go_package option or set the Bazel -M flag.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 72.22222% with 30 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 60.47%. Comparing base (11b5100) to head (34a082c).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
ipns/pb/ipns-record.pb.go	72.22%	29 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #789      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   60.48%   60.47%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         245      245              
  Lines       31138    31138              
==========================================
- Hits        18833    18830       -3     
- Misses      10625    10628       +3     
  Partials     1680     1680              

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
ipns/record.go	68.21% <ø> (ø)
ipns/pb/ipns-record.pb.go	72.22% <72.22%> (ø)

... and 14 files with indirect coverage changes