rules 132 and 133 check for a non-existent field

[ethanoroshiba]

Rules 132 and 133 check for the child_type field on resource_reference [1], but AEP specifies the resource reference as a string [2]. These two conflict, since the string type can't have a child_type field. Either the checks need to be disabled or the resource reference type needs to be changed to a message here: https://github.com/aep-dev/aep-components/blob/main/proto/aep-api/aep/api/field_info.proto.

Notably, AEP differs from Google's proto definitions here, as Google defines a ResourceReference as its own type, with type and child_type fields [3]. I think this is probably a better direction, but will defer to maintainers on what to do here.

[andrew-womeldorf]

I started getting the same error after upgrading my linter today. I believe this is a result of the work done in #111 .

[toumorokoshi]

Thanks for the report!

Yes, we missed adding child type. And I think we probably still need to add it (as in some cases it might be valuable to express a child type).

The primary motivation to switch it from an object to a top-level field is because we are aggregating field-level annotations into field_info - since resource references are a common use case, the need to have effectively a three-level deep annotation as a common use case felt clunky:

string resource = 2 [(aep.api.field_info) = {
   resource_reference: {
       type: "api.example.com/user"
   }
}];

I think we could just add a sibling field alongside it for child references, however:

string resource = 2 [(aep.api.field_info) = {
   resource_reference_child_type: "api.example.com/user"
}];

thoughts?

[toumorokoshi]

@rambleraptor assigning to you for either disabling or fixing the rule for now.