Practise the standard verbs for versioning protobuf schemas safely.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ every removed field number in the .proto file so a future field can never accidentally reuse an identifier still present in old serialized data.'
We 'reserve a field number' — the standard, established protobuf collocation for permanently retiring an identifier from reuse. The other options aren't the recognised term here.
2 / 5
Fill in: 'Renumbering an existing field instead of just renaming it can ___ every message serialized under the old schema misread once the new definition is deployed.'
We say renumbering will 'leave' old messages misread — the standard, natural collocation for the resulting incompatibility. The other options aren't idiomatic here.
3 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ schema changes against both the previous and next service version in CI, so a field removed on one side doesn't silently break a peer still running the old build.'
We 'validate' schema changes — the standard, simple collocation for confirming compatibility before a change ships. The other options are less idiomatic here.
4 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ a new field as optional with a sensible default rather than required, so an older client that's never heard of it doesn't fail to parse the message at all.'
We 'add a field' — the standard, simple collocation for extending a message definition. The other options are less idiomatic here.
5 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ generated code from every .proto change through a compatibility checker before merging, so a breaking wire-format change is caught in review rather than in production.'
We 'run' a checker — the standard, simple collocation for executing an automated compatibility tool. The other options are less idiomatic here.