added docs on protorequire.ProtoEqual in testing.md#10255
Merged
Conversation
stephanos
approved these changes
May 13, 2026
| ), | ||
| ) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could we also add sth like "prefer a single ProtoEqual over field-by-field" as general guidance?
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changed?
Added a short protorequire package subsection to docs/development/testing.md documenting protorequire.ProtoEqual and the new protorequire.IgnoreFields option, with a minimal usage example.
Why?
Follow-up to PR #9937. Without a doc entry, the new IgnoreFields helper is undiscoverable and contributors will keep reaching for the verbose cmp.Diff pattern.
How did you test it?