Implemented Jan's suggestion of FieldCollection, replacing FieldAccessorCollection.

I think Jan was actually suggesting keeping both, but that feels redundant to me. The test diff is misleading here IMO, because I wouldn't expect real code using reflection to use several accessors one after another like this, unless it was within a loop. Evidence to the contrary would be welcome :)

This change also incidentally goes part way to fixing the issue of the JSON formatter not writing out the fields in field number order - with this change, it does except for oneofs, which we can fix in a follow-up change.

I haven't actually added a test with a message with fields deliberately out of order - I'm happy to do so though. It feels like it would make sense to be in google/src/protobuf, but it's not entirely clear what the rules of engagement are for adding new messages there. (unittest_proto3.proto?)

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/csharp/src/Google.Protobuf/Reflection/OneofDescriptor.cs b/csharp/src/Google.Protobuf/Reflection/OneofDescriptor.cs
index a79d9de4..cd4c5534 100644
--- a/csharp/src/Google.Protobuf/Reflection/OneofDescriptor.cs
+++ b/csharp/src/Google.Protobuf/Reflection/OneofDescriptor.cs
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ namespace Google.Protobuf.Reflection
         internal void CrossLink()
         {
             List<FieldDescriptor> fieldCollection = new List<FieldDescriptor>();
-            foreach (var field in ContainingType.Fields)
+            foreach (var field in ContainingType.Fields.InDeclarationOrder())
             {
                 if (field.ContainingOneof == this)
                 {