Skip to main content

Module Development

The Buf Schema Registry (BSR) automatically enforces that your module compiles when it is pushed, but there are other best practices that can't be enforced that you should consider when you are developing your modules. We'll go over what these best practies are, and why they're important to keep in mind.

Module Layout#

The module is a versioned unit of Protobuf files, but it's best to also incorporate a certain level of versioning in its directory and package structure.

Suppose that you are implementing the module, which only contains a single .proto file initially. Rather than placing this file at the root of the module (i.e. adjacent to the buf.yaml and buf.lock files), this file should still be nested within a directory and defined with a package that attempts to make it unique across other module dependencies.

proto/├── buf.lock├── buf.yaml└── pkg.proto
proto/├── acme│   └── pkg│       └── v1│           └── pkg.proto├── buf.lock└── buf.yaml

For those that don't adopt this best practice, those APIs are more prone to collide with other user API definitions. For example, if a consumer needs to import Protobuf definitions from two modules, both of which define an api.proto, then the result module will not compile. In other words, it's impossible for the compiler to distinguish between what api.proto you are referring to if there are multiple.

The module layout described here is included in the MINIMAL lint category.

Maintain Backwards Compatibility#

Do not push backwards-incompatible changes to your module.

There are clearly exceptions to this rule for packages in-development (e.g. alpha and beta), but module authors should do everything they can to maintain compatibility in their module.

If, for example, the Diamond Dependency Problem manifests itself, then some users will not be able to compile their module.

In the future, we plan to enable a configurable (opt-in), module compatibility guarantee so that it's impossible to push backwards-incompatible changes to your module. With this, consumers can freely update to the latest version on any module and never break their builds. For more, check out the roadmap.

Package versions#

If you absolutely must roll out a breaking change to your API, there are ways you can safely do so without breaking compatibility with your earlier module versions.

In the Module Layout example above, you'll notice the use of a versioned filepath (i.e. it contains a v1 element). In this case, the filepath reflects a versioned package that should be used in the Protobuf files in that directory (i.e. acme.pkg.v1).

This has two key benefits:

  • The Protobuf files you define will not collide with other modules so that they can always be compiled together.
  • The version element in the filepath makes it easy to roll out incompatible versions in the same module because they are consumed from different filepaths.

Suppose that you have a module similar to the one described in Module Layout, and you need to make a breaking change to the acme/pkg/v1/pkg.proto definitions. Rather than committing a breaking change to the same file, you can create a new file in a separately versioned filepath, such as acme/pkg/v2/pkg.proto.

This looks like the following:

proto/├── acme│   └── pkg│       ├── v1│       │   └── pkg.proto│       └── v2│           └── pkg.proto├── buf.lock└── buf.yaml

In this case, acme/pkg/v2/pkg.proto is incompatible with acme/pkg/v1/pkg.proto (the field was changed):

syntax = "proto3";
package acme.pkg.v1;
// Object is a generic object that uses// an int32 for its identifier.message Object {    int32 id = 1;}
syntax = "proto3";
package acme.pkg.v2;
// Object is a generic object that uses// a string for its identifier.message Object {    string id = 1;}

Fortunately, with this structure, the module author can safely push their latest changes to the module and all of their consumers can continue to compile their modules.

The package version recommendation described here is described by the PACKAGE_VERSION_SUFFIX lint rule.