Added conformance test for unknown field ordering.

Implementations should not rearrange unknown fields for the same field number, because some field types accept multiple wire types (eg. packed and unpacked).

All languages currently pass this test except Java "full" and Obj-C.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 619953711

conformance/binary_json_conformance_suite.cc

@@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
 #include <cstring>
 #include <memory>
 #include <string>
-#include <type_traits>
 #include <utility>
 #include <vector>
 
@@ -25,7 +24,6 @@
 #include "absl/strings/str_cat.h"
 #include "absl/strings/string_view.h"
 #include "absl/strings/substitute.h"
-#include "json/json.h"
 #include "conformance/conformance.pb.h"
 #include "conformance_test.h"
 #include "google/protobuf/editions/golden/test_messages_proto2_editions.pb.h"
@@ -37,6 +35,7 @@
 #include "google/protobuf/test_messages_proto3.pb.h"
 #include "google/protobuf/test_messages_proto3.pb.h"
 #include "google/protobuf/text_format.h"
+#include "google/protobuf/unknown_field_set.h"
 #include "google/protobuf/util/type_resolver_util.h"
 #include "google/protobuf/wire_format_lite.h"
 
@@ -323,7 +322,8 @@ bool BinaryAndJsonConformanceSuite::ParseResponse(
 
     default:
       ABSL_LOG(FATAL) << test_name
-                      << ": unknown payload type: " << response.result_case();
+                      << ": unknown payload type: " << response.result_case()
+                      << ", response: " << response;
   }
 
   return true;
@@ -1285,6 +1285,55 @@ void BinaryAndJsonConformanceSuiteImpl<MessageType>::TestUnknownMessage() {
                              message.SerializeAsString());
 }
 
+template <typename MessageType>
+void BinaryAndJsonConformanceSuiteImpl<MessageType>::TestUnknownOrdering() {
+  // Implementations must preserve the ordering of different unknown fields for
+  // the same field number.  This is because some field types will accept
+  // multiple wire types for the same field.  For example, repeated primitive
+  // fields will accept both length-delimited (packed) and
+  // varint/fixed32/fixed64 (unpacked) wire types, and reordering these could
+  // reorder the elements of the repeated field.
+  MessageType message;
+  MessageType prototype;
+  message.mutable_unknown_fields()->AddLengthDelimited(UNKNOWN_FIELD, "abc");
+  message.mutable_unknown_fields()->AddVarint(UNKNOWN_FIELD, 123);
+  message.mutable_unknown_fields()->AddLengthDelimited(UNKNOWN_FIELD, "def");
+  message.mutable_unknown_fields()->AddVarint(UNKNOWN_FIELD, 456);
+  std::string serialized = message.SerializeAsString();
+
+  ConformanceRequestSetting setting(
+      REQUIRED, conformance::PROTOBUF, conformance::PROTOBUF,
+      conformance::BINARY_TEST, prototype, "UnknownOrdering", serialized);
+  const ConformanceRequest& request = setting.GetRequest();
+  ConformanceResponse response;
+  suite_.RunTest(setting.GetTestName(), request, &response);
+  MessageType response_message;
+  if (response.result_case() == ConformanceResponse::kSkipped) {
+    suite_.ReportSkip(setting.GetTestName(), request, response);
+    return;
+  }
+  suite_.ParseResponse(response, setting, &response_message);
+
+  const UnknownFieldSet& ufs = response_message.unknown_fields();
+  if (ufs.field_count() != 4 || ufs.field(0).number() != UNKNOWN_FIELD ||
+      ufs.field(1).number() != UNKNOWN_FIELD ||
+      ufs.field(2).number() != UNKNOWN_FIELD ||
+      ufs.field(3).number() != UNKNOWN_FIELD ||
+      ufs.field(0).type() != UnknownField::Type::TYPE_LENGTH_DELIMITED ||
+      ufs.field(1).type() != UnknownField::Type::TYPE_VARINT ||
+      ufs.field(2).type() != UnknownField::Type::TYPE_LENGTH_DELIMITED ||
+      ufs.field(3).type() != UnknownField::Type::TYPE_VARINT ||
+      ufs.field(0).length_delimited() != "abc" ||
+      ufs.field(1).varint() != 123 ||
+      ufs.field(2).length_delimited() != "def" ||
+      ufs.field(3).varint() != 456) {
+    suite_.ReportFailure(setting.GetTestName(), setting.GetLevel(), request,
+                         response, "Unknown field mismatch");
+  } else {
+    suite_.ReportSuccess(setting.GetTestName());
+  }
+}
+
 template <typename MessageType>
 void BinaryAndJsonConformanceSuiteImpl<
     MessageType>::TestBinaryPerformanceForAlternatingUnknownFields() {
@@ -1571,6 +1620,7 @@ void BinaryAndJsonConformanceSuiteImpl<MessageType>::RunAllTests() {
     // Required.Proto3.ProtobufInput.UnknownVarint.ProtobufOutput
     // from failure list of python_cpp python java
     TestUnknownMessage();
+    TestUnknownOrdering();
     TestOneofMessage();
 
     RunJsonTests();

conformance/binary_json_conformance_suite.h

@@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ class BinaryAndJsonConformanceSuiteImpl {
   void TestIllegalTags();
   void TestOneofMessage();
   void TestUnknownMessage();
+  void TestUnknownOrdering();
   void TestValidDataForType(
       google::protobuf::FieldDescriptor::Type,
       std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::string>> values);

conformance/failure_list_java.txt

@@ -146,3 +146,7 @@ Required.Editions_Proto2.JsonInput.Int32FieldPlusSign
 Required.Editions_Proto2.JsonInput.RepeatedFieldWrongElementTypeExpectingStringsGotBool
 Required.Editions_Proto2.JsonInput.RepeatedFieldWrongElementTypeExpectingStringsGotInt
 Required.Editions_Proto2.JsonInput.StringFieldNotAString
+Required.Editions_Proto2.ProtobufInput.UnknownOrdering.ProtobufOutput
+Required.Editions_Proto3.ProtobufInput.UnknownOrdering.ProtobufOutput
+Required.Proto2.ProtobufInput.UnknownOrdering.ProtobufOutput
+Required.Proto3.ProtobufInput.UnknownOrdering.ProtobufOutput

conformance/failure_list_objc.txt

@@ -1,2 +1,7 @@
 # JSON input or output tests are skipped (in conformance_objc.m) as mobile
 # platforms don't support JSON wire format to avoid code bloat.
+
+Required.Editions_Proto2.ProtobufInput.UnknownOrdering.ProtobufOutput
+Required.Editions_Proto3.ProtobufInput.UnknownOrdering.ProtobufOutput
+Required.Proto2.ProtobufInput.UnknownOrdering.ProtobufOutput
+Required.Proto3.ProtobufInput.UnknownOrdering.ProtobufOutput