Avoiding Common Protobuf's Pitfalls with Buf

19 minute read     Updated:

Adam Gordon Bell %
Adam Gordon Bell

This article explores the buf tool. Earthly can enhance your buf toolchain by ensuring reproducible builds for your gRPC services. Check it out.


Welcome back! In my tutorial series on building an Activity Tracker, I built up a client and server communicating over gRPC. I then added REST endpoints to it using the gRPC-Gateway protoc plugin.

The plugins like gRPC-gateway and OpenAPI helped make me productive, but my protoc call grew from a simple invocation to a multi-line script, which brought buf to my attention. buf is a suite of tools that simplify dealing with protocol buffers wrapped up in a nice three-letter command.

So before I roll this service out and start actively using it, I will take my existing implementation and see how I can use buf lint, buf generate and buf breaking to improve things.


The current activity tracking code and final version are on GitHub but the main thing you need to know for this walk-though is that my gRPC service is defined like this:

service ActivityLogService {
    rpc Insert(Activity) returns (InsertResponse) {}
    rpc Retrieve(RetrieveRequest) returns (Activity) {}
    rpc List(ListRequest) returns (Activities) {}

message Activity {
    int32 id = 1;
    google.protobuf.Timestamp time = 2;
    string description = 3;


buf lint

After installing buf, I ran buf mod init in my activity-log path, which created a default buf.yaml file. Then I ran buf lint.

> buf lint
  "api.v1.Activity" is used as the request or response type for multiple RPCs.
  RPC request type "Activity" should be named "InsertRequest" or "ActivityLogServiceInsertRequest".
  "api.v1.Activity" is used as the request or response type for multiple RPCs.
  RPC response type "Activity" should be named "RetrieveResponse" or "ActivityLogServiceRetrieveResponse".
  RPC response type "Activities" should be named "ListResponse" or "ActivityLogServiceListResponse".

This is an excellent catch by buf lint. APIs change over time, and by sharing the Activity type across multiple RPC definitions, I’m essentially coupling them together forever.

Or as buf’s guide states:

One of the single most important rules to enforce in modern Protobuf development is to have a unique request and response message for every RPC. Separate RPCs should not have their request and response parameters controlled by the same Protobuf message, and if you share a Protobuf message between multiple RPCs, this results in multiple RPCs being affected when fields on this Protobuf message change. Even in straightforward cases, best practice is to always have a wrapper message for your RPC request and response types.

So I wrap up my Activity into proper Request and Response messages:

message InsertRequest {
    Activity activity = 1;

message RetrieveResponse {
    Activity activity = 1;

And update my service to use them:

service ActivityLogService {
    rpc Insert(InsertRequest) returns (InsertResponse) {}
    rpc Retrieve(RetrieveRequest) returns (RetrieveResponse) {}
    rpc List(ListRequest) returns (ListResponse) {}

And with that, I am passing all the buf lint rules. Later, I’ll add buf lint to the CI process using Earthly, but for now, I’d like to move on to breaking change detection.

buf breaking

As my activity service evolves – as I add new features and roll out new versions – I need all my changes to be backwards compatible. This is because it’s impossible to upgrade a gRPC service and its clients instantly. So I need backwards compatibility to prevent downtime. That way, a new version of the service can receive and handle messages from a client using an earlier version of the protobuf definition.

buf breaking is here to help me find breaking changes. For example, it can show that the changes I just made above are breaking changes:

> buf breaking --against "https://github.com/earthly/cloud-services-example.git#branch=main,subdir=activity-log" 
Using buf breaking to compare against main branch
  RPC "Insert" on service "Activity_Log" changed request type from "api.v1.Activity" to "api.v1.InsertRequest".
  RPC "Retrieve" on service "Activity_Log" changed response type from "api.v1.Activity" to "api.v1.RetrieveResponse".
  RPC "List" on service "Activity_Log" changed response type from "api.v1.Activities" to "api.v1.ListResponse".

I’m not too worried about those breaking changes because my service is not yet running anywhere, but from now on, I want to prevent the introduction of any break changes. To do that, I’m going to introduce buf lint and buf breaking into my CI process, but first, I need to tackle code generation.

buf generate

When I first started switching the activity tracker over to gRPC the protoc call look liked this:

 protoc activity-log/api/v1/*.proto \
    --go_out=. \
    --go_opt=paths=source_relative \

But as I added a grpc-gateway, and a OpenAPI spec and rest endpoints, it got a little out of control.

protoc api/v1/*.proto \
            --go_out=. \
            --go_opt=paths=source_relative \
            --go-grpc_out=. \
            --go-grpc_opt=paths=source_relative \
            --grpc-gateway_out . \
            --grpc-gateway_opt logtostderr=true \
            --grpc-gateway_opt paths=source_relative \
            --grpc-gateway_opt generate_unbound_methods=true \
            --openapiv2_out . \
            --openapiv2_opt logtostderr=true \
            --openapiv2_opt generate_unbound_methods=true \

Moving this to buf generate is simple: I create a buf.gen.yaml file and start listing and configuring plugins.

version: v1
 - name: go
   out: .
   opt: paths=source_relative
 - name: go-grpc
   out: .
   opt: paths=source_relative
 - name: grpc-gateway
   out: .
     - logtostderr=true
     - paths=source_relative
     - generate_unbound_methods=true
 - name: openapiv2
   out: .
    - logtostderr=true
    - generate_unbound_methods=true

Because of the nested nature of yaml, I find this much easier to understand than a lengthy protoc call. So then instead of protoc I call buf generate, and all the generated code is produced.

Earthly CI Changes

In order to ensure my build process is repeatable, I’ve wrapped up all the build steps into an Earthfile (see previous discussion). So I don’t call buf lint, buf breaking or buf generate in CI or locally. Instead I call earthly +proto after changing it like this:

    FROM +proto-deps
    WORKDIR /activity-log
    COPY go.mod go.sum ./ 
    COPY api ./api
-   RUN protoc api/v1/*.proto \
-           --go_out=. \
-           --go_opt=paths=source_relative \
-           --go-grpc_out=. \
-           --go-grpc_opt=paths=source_relative \
-           --grpc-gateway_out . \
-           --grpc-gateway_opt logtostderr=true \
-           --grpc-gateway_opt paths=source_relative \
-           --grpc-gateway_opt generate_unbound_methods=true \
-           --openapiv2_out . \
-           --openapiv2_opt logtostderr=true \
-           --openapiv2_opt generate_unbound_methods=true \
-           --proto_path=.
+    COPY buf.* .
+    RUN buf lint
+    RUN buf breaking --against "https://github.com/earthly/cloud-services-example.git#branch=buf,subdir=activity-log" 
+    RUN buf generate 
    SAVE ARTIFACT ./api AS LOCAL ./api 

And with that, I have a simpler, more declarative protocol buffer generation process, and buf lint and buf breaking help me avoid some gRPC foot-guns, and it’s all wrapped up in a reusable build script, so no breaking change or lint violation will even make it into my main branch.

( So, hint hint, if you’re looking for a smarter build process, give Earthly a go. )

And I’m just scratching the surface on buf, most of the steps above are highly configurable, and their schema registry and remote generation feature look very cool. But for now, I think it’s been an improvement.

Earthly Cloud: Consistent, Fast Builds, Any CI
Consistent, repeatable builds across all environments. Advanced caching for faster builds. Easy integration with any CI. 6,000 build minutes per month included.

Get Started Free

Adam Gordon Bell %
Spreading the word about Earthly. Host of CoRecursive podcast. Physical Embodiment of Cunningham's Law.
✉Email Adam✉



Get notified about new articles!
We won't send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time.