| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Related to #658 and #5007.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This consists of:
- Changing the codegen for the fixed set of options protos, to parse unknown fields instead of skipping them
- Add a new CustomOptions type in the C# support library
- Expose CustomOptions properties from the immutable proto wrappers in the support library
Only single-value options are currently supported, and fetching options values requires getting the type right
and knowing the field number. Both of these can be addressed at a later time.
Fixes #2143, at least as a first pass.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
the future.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This requires .NET 4.5, and there are a few compatibility changes required around reflection.
Creating a PR from this to see how our CI systems handle it. Will want to add more documentation,
validation and probably tests before merging.
This is in aid of issue #590.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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?)
|
| |
|
|
| |
Instead, introduce GeneratedCodeInfo which passes in what we need, and adjust the codegen to take account of this.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
|
We'll see what I've missed when CI fails...
|
