fix(spec)!: Make "message" field name consistent between protocol bindings #1302

Tehsmash · 2025-12-11T11:18:02Z

While this is a reserved word for proto itself, best practise is to avoid field names that conflict with language (python etc) keywords, as "message" isn't a language keyword this improves the consistency and readability when using the types generated from the proto and avoids needing to translate the name for JSON encoding.

Closes: #1230

gemini-code-assist · 2025-12-11T11:18:13Z

Summary of Changes

Hello @Tehsmash, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request standardizes the naming of a Message field within the gRPC protocol buffer definitions for SendMessageResponse and StreamResponse. By renaming the field from msg to message and removing the explicit json_name annotation, the change improves consistency across various protocol bindings and enhances the overall readability of the generated types.

Highlights

Field Renaming: The msg field within the SendMessageResponse and StreamResponse protobuf definitions has been renamed to message.
JSON Consistency: The json_name = "message" annotation has been removed from the affected fields, as the field name now directly matches the desired JSON representation, ensuring consistency between protocol bindings.
Readability and Best Practice: This change improves readability and aligns with best practices by avoiding field names that might conflict with language keywords, as mentioned in the pull request description.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	`/gemini review`	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	`/gemini summary`	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	`/gemini help`	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request standardizes the field name for Message types to message in SendMessageResponse and StreamResponse. Renaming the field from msg to message improves readability and consistency with other parts of the schema, such as TaskStatus. The change is correct and well-aligned with the goal of making the protocol bindings more consistent.

It's important to note that this is a source-breaking change for clients using the generated protobuf code, as they will need to update field access from .msg to .message. Since the field number is unchanged, wire compatibility is maintained. You may want to consider indicating this is a breaking change in your commit message (e.g., using fix!: or a BREAKING CHANGE: footer) to properly communicate the impact to users.

For future consideration, to achieve full consistency, the request field in SendMessageRequest could also be renamed to message, as it currently uses json_name = "message".

While this is a reserved word for proto itself, best practise is to avoid field names that conflict with language (python etc) keywords, as "message" isn't a language keyword this improves the consistency and readability when using the types generated from the proto and avoids needing to translate the name for JSON encoding. Closes: a2aproject#1230

geneknit · 2025-12-15T20:00:55Z

/vote

git-vote · 2025-12-15T20:00:57Z

Vote created

@geneknit has called for a vote on fix(spec)!: Make "message" field name consistent between protocol bindings (#1302).

The members of the following teams have binding votes:

Team
@a2aproject/a2a-tsc

Non-binding votes are also appreciated as a sign of support!

How to vote

You can cast your vote by reacting to this comment. The following reactions are supported:

In favor	Against	Abstain
👍	👎	👀

Please note that voting for multiple options is not allowed and those votes won't be counted.

The vote will be open for 11months 29days 3h 50m 24s. It will pass if at least 51% of the users with binding votes vote In favor 👍. Once it's closed, results will be published here as a new comment.

Tehsmash · 2025-12-16T17:48:17Z

@darrelmiller @muscariello @geneknit I tested this through buf generate in the a2a-python repo and it generates correctly:

class SendMessageRequest(_message.Message):
    __slots__ = ()
    TENANT_FIELD_NUMBER: _ClassVar[int]
    MESSAGE_FIELD_NUMBER: _ClassVar[int]
    CONFIGURATION_FIELD_NUMBER: _ClassVar[int]
    METADATA_FIELD_NUMBER: _ClassVar[int]
    tenant: str
    message: Message
    configuration: SendMessageConfiguration
    metadata: _struct_pb2.Struct
    def __init__(self, tenant: _Optional[str] = ..., message: _Optional[_Union[Message, _Mapping]] = ..., configuration: _Optional[_Union[SendMessageConfiguration, _Mapping]] = ..., metadata: _Optional[_Union[_struct_pb2.Struct, _Mapping]] = ...) -> None: ...

git-vote · 2025-12-16T20:11:05Z

Vote status

So far 37.50% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
3	0	0	5

Binding votes (3)

User	Vote	Timestamp
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-17T20:29:33Z

Vote status

So far 37.50% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
3	0	0	5

Binding votes (3)

User	Vote	Timestamp
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-18T20:48:30Z

Vote status

So far 37.50% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
3	0	0	5

Binding votes (3)

User	Vote	Timestamp
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-19T20:49:50Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-20T21:18:30Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-21T21:19:50Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-22T21:40:33Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-23T21:49:51Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-24T22:10:33Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-25T22:19:51Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-26T22:40:34Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-27T22:49:52Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-28T23:10:34Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-29T23:19:52Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-30T23:40:34Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2025-12-31T23:49:52Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2026-01-02T00:10:35Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2026-01-03T00:19:53Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2026-01-04T00:40:35Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2026-01-05T00:49:53Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2026-01-06T01:10:35Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

git-vote · 2026-01-07T01:19:53Z

Vote status

So far 50.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	4

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ToddSegal	In favor	2025-12-19 19:23:31.0 +00:00:00
darrelmiller	In favor	2025-12-16 18:04:51.0 +00:00:00
geneknit	In favor	2025-12-16 18:05:16.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2025-12-16 12:45:33.0 +00:00:00
@lerhaupt	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@000-000-000-000-000	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

Tehsmash requested a review from a team as a code owner December 11, 2025 11:18

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Dec 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

Tehsmash force-pushed the standardise_message_field branch from 8ce864b to 0d7b11b Compare December 11, 2025 14:06

holtskinner changed the title ~~fix: Make "message" field name consistent between protocol bindings~~ fix(spec)!: Make "message" field name consistent between protocol bindings Dec 11, 2025

holtskinner added the TSC Review To be reviewed by the Technical Steering Committee label Dec 11, 2025

github-project-automation bot added this to TSC Review Dec 11, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this to Backlog in TSC Review Dec 11, 2025

Merge branch 'main' into standardise_message_field

8025186

git-vote bot added gitvote gitvote/open labels Dec 15, 2025

Merge branch 'main' into standardise_message_field

055fa8d

amye moved this from Backlog to In Voting in TSC Review Dec 16, 2025

Merge branch 'main' into standardise_message_field

92b0dda

darrelmiller approved these changes Jan 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into standardise_message_field

8e3f0bd

fix(spec)!: Make "message" field name consistent between protocol bindings #1302

Are you sure you want to change the base?

fix(spec)!: Make "message" field name consistent between protocol bindings #1302

Conversation

Tehsmash commented Dec 11, 2025

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot commented Dec 11, 2025

Summary of Changes

Highlights

Footnotes

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

geneknit commented Dec 15, 2025

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 15, 2025

Vote created

How to vote

Uh oh!

Tehsmash commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 16, 2025

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (3)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 17, 2025

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (3)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 18, 2025

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (3)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 19, 2025

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (4)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 20, 2025

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (4)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 21, 2025

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (4)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 22, 2025

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (4)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 23, 2025

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (4)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 24, 2025

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (4)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 25, 2025

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (4)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 26, 2025

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (4)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Dec 27, 2025

Vote status