Use unique field number for custom options

[w1am]

User description

• Use unique field number for custom options

---

PR Type

Enhancement

---

Description

• Changed custom option field number from 50000 to 2113

• Ensures unique field numbering for protobuf extensions

• Aligns with protobuf best practices for custom options

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["EnumValueOptions Extension"] -- "error field" --> B["Field Number: 50000"]
  B -- "updated to" --> C["Field Number: 2113"]

Loading

File Walkthrough

	Relevant files
Configuration changes	rpc.proto Update ErrorMetadata extension field number                            src/main/proto/kurrentdb/protocol/v2/rpc.proto Updated ErrorMetadata extension field number from 50000 to 2113 Ensures unique field numbering for protobuf custom options Maintains extension functionality with corrected field identifier +1/-1

---

[qodo-code-review]

PR Compliance Guide 🔍

Below is a summary of compliance checks for this PR:

Security Compliance
🟢	No security concerns identified No security vulnerabilities detected by AI analysis. Human verification advised for critical code.
Ticket Compliance
⚪	🎫 No ticket provided Create ticket/issue
Codebase Duplication Compliance
⚪	Codebase context is not defined Follow the guide to enable codebase context checks.
Custom Compliance
🟢	Generic: Meaningful Naming and Self-Documenting Code Objective: Ensure all identifiers clearly express their purpose and intent, making code self-documenting Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
⚪	Generic: Comprehensive Audit Trails Objective: To create a detailed and reliable record of critical system actions for security analysis and compliance. Status: No logging context: The change only updates a protobuf field number and does not add or modify any audit logging for critical actions, which may be outside the scope of this PR. Referred Code // Extend EnumValueOptions to include error information for enum values extend google.protobuf.EnumValueOptions { // Provides additional information about error conditions for automated // code generation and documentation. optional ErrorMetadata error = 2113; Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Robust Error Handling and Edge Case Management Objective: Ensure comprehensive error handling that provides meaningful context and graceful degradation Status: No error handling: The diff changes only a protobuf option field number and introduces no runtime error handling or edge-case logic, which may be handled elsewhere. Referred Code // Extend EnumValueOptions to include error information for enum values extend google.protobuf.EnumValueOptions { // Provides additional information about error conditions for automated // code generation and documentation. optional ErrorMetadata error = 2113; Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Error Handling Objective: To prevent the leakage of sensitive system information through error messages while providing sufficient detail for internal debugging. Status: User-facing detail risk: The change references error metadata in protobuf options but does not indicate how user-facing errors are rendered, which is outside this diff. Referred Code // Extend EnumValueOptions to include error information for enum values extend google.protobuf.EnumValueOptions { // Provides additional information about error conditions for automated // code generation and documentation. optional ErrorMetadata error = 2113; Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Logging Practices Objective: To ensure logs are useful for debugging and auditing without exposing sensitive information like PII, PHI, or cardholder data. Status: Logging not shown: No logging is added or modified in this change; compliance cannot be assessed from this diff alone. Referred Code // Extend EnumValueOptions to include error information for enum values extend google.protobuf.EnumValueOptions { // Provides additional information about error conditions for automated // code generation and documentation. optional ErrorMetadata error = 2113; Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Security-First Input Validation and Data Handling Objective: Ensure all data inputs are validated, sanitized, and handled securely to prevent vulnerabilities Status: No input validation: The protobuf option field renumbering does not involve input handling or validation, so security validation cannot be determined from this change. Referred Code // Extend EnumValueOptions to include error information for enum values extend google.protobuf.EnumValueOptions { // Provides additional information about error conditions for automated // code generation and documentation. optional ErrorMetadata error = 2113; Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules

Compliance status legend

🟢 - Fully Compliant
🟡 - Partial Compliant
🔴 - Not Compliant
⚪ - Requires Further Human Verification
🏷️ - Compliance label

[qodo-code-review]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
General	Use conventional custom option field number Revert the field number for the custom option error to a value within the recommended range (50000-536,870,911) to avoid potential conflicts with standard protobuf options. src/main/proto/kurrentdb/protocol/v2/rpc.proto [76] -optional ErrorMetadata error = 2113; +optional ErrorMetadata error = 50000; Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies that the new field number 2113 violates protobuf's best practice for custom options, which can cause future compatibility issues.	Medium
More

[github-actions]

@w1am 👉 Created pull request targeting release/v1.1: #356