| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This addresses issue #1008, by creating a JsonFormatter which is private and only different
to JsonFormatter.Default in terms of reference equality.
Other plausible designs:
- The same, but expose the diagnostic-only formatter
- Add something to settings to say "I don't have a type registry at all"
- Change the behaviour of JsonFormatter.Default (bad idea IMO, as we really *don't* want the result of this used as regular JSON to be parsed)
Note that just trying to find a separate fix to issue #933 and using that to override Any.ToString() differently wouldn't work for messages that *contain* an Any.
Generated code changes follow in the next commit.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This required a rework of the tokenizer to allow for a "replaying" tokenizer, basically in case the @type value comes after the data itself. This rework is nice in some ways (all the pushback and object depth logic in one place) but is a little fragile in terms of token push-back when using the replay tokenizer. It'll be fine for the scenario we need it for, but we should be careful...
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There are corner cases where MessageDescriptor.{ClrType,Parser} will return null, and these are now documented. However, normally they *should* be implemented, even for descriptors of for dynamic messages. Ditto FieldDescriptor.Accessor.
We'll still need a fair amount of work to implement dynamic messages, but this change means that the public API will be remain intact.
Additionally, this change starts making use of C# 6 features in the files that it touches. This is far from exhaustive, and later PRs will have more.
Generated code changes coming in the next commit.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This includes all the well-known types except Any.
Some aspects are likely to require further work when the details of the JSON parsing expectations are hammered out in more detail. Some of these have "ignored" tests already.
Note that the choice *not* to use Json.NET was made for two reasons:
- Going from 0 dependencies to 1 dependency is a big hit, and there's not much benefit here
- Json.NET parses more leniently than we'd want; accommodating that would be nearly as much work as writing the tokenizer
This only really affects the JsonTokenizer, which could be replaced by Json.NET. The JsonParser code would be about the same length with Json.NET... but I wouldn't be as confident in it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This changes how we approach JSON formatting in general - instead of looking at the field a value came from, we just look at the type of the value. It's possible this *could* be slightly inefficient, but if we start caring about JSON performance deeply, we'll probably want to rewrite all of this anyway. It's definitely simpler this way.
When we support dynamic messages, we'll need to modify JsonFormatter to handle enum values, as they won't come be "real" .NET enums at that point. It shouldn't be hard to do though.
|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| | |
Document everything, and turn on errors if we fail to document anything in the future
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
the future.
|
| |/ |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
it from the generated code soon.
Additionally, change it to return the value passed, and make it generic with a class constraint.
A separate method doesn't have the class constraint, for more unusual scenarios.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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?)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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...
|
