| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| | |
Add ReleaseSigned configuration for C#
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
This seems remarkably little code, but it appears to work. I can add tests for invalid structs at some point, once the general approach is approved.
|
| |/
|
|
| |
This is taking an approach of putting all the logic in JsonFormatter. That's helpful in terms of concealing the details of whether or not to wrap the value in quotes, but it does lack flexibility. I don't *think* we want to allow user-defined formatting of messages, so that much shouldn't be a problem.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Use ' instead of " in the expected JSON, then replace it before asserting.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
(Shows the benefit of unit testing even code "too simple to fail"...)
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
While I've provided operators, I haven't yet provided the method equivalents. It's not clear to me that
they're actually a good idea, while we're really targeting C# developers who definitely *can* use the user-defined operators.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
- Fix nupec paths
- Remove an obsolete part of the JSON build
- Add documentation and tests to reflection extension methods, and improve implementations
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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?)
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This is definitely not ready to ship - I'm "troubled" by the disconnect between a list of fields in declaration order, and a mapping of field accessors by field number/name. Discussion required, but I find that easier when we've got code to look at :)
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Changes in brief:
1. Descriptor is now the entry point for all reflection.
2. IReflectedMessage has gone; there's now a Descriptor property in IMessage, which is explicitly implemented (due to the static property).
3. FieldAccessorTable has gone away
4. IFieldAccessor and OneofFieldAccessor still exist; we *could* put the functionality straight into FieldDescriptor and OneofDescriptor... I'm unsure about that.
5. There's a temporary property MessageDescriptor.FieldAccessorsByFieldNumber to make the test changes small - we probably want this to go away
6. Discovery for delegates is now via attributes applied to properties and the Clear method of a oneof
I'm happy with 1-3.
4 I'm unsure about - feedback welcome.
5 will go away
6 I'm unsure about, both in design and implementation. Should we have a ProtobufMessageAttribute too? Should we find all the relevant attributes in MessageDescriptor and pass them down, to avoid an O(N^2) scenario?
Generated code changes coming in the next commit.
|
| |
|
|
| |
reflection API rethink before doing the rest.
|
|
|
We'll see what I've missed when CI fails...
|
