| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now the generated code doesn't need to check for end group tags, as it will skip whole groups at a time.
Currently it will ignore extraneous end group tags, which may or may not be a good thing.
Renamed ConsumeLastField to SkipLastField as it felt more natural.
Removed WireFormat.IsEndGroupTag as it's no longer useful.
This mostly fixes issue 688.
(Generated code changes coming in next commit.)
|
|
|
|
| |
We don't need to expose the InvalidProtocolBufferException factory method now that the generated code doesn't throw the exception.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
stream", rather than using an awkward out parameter.
This simplifies quite a lot of code.
Generated code in next commit.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
expected to.
We should now have no conformance failures.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is expected to be the cause of the conformance test failures.
Generated code in next commit.
|
|
|
|
| |
Completely untested so far - easier to get started in VS and then transfer to Linux for tweaking...
|
|\
| |
| | |
Document everything, and turn on errors if we fail to document anything in the future
|
| | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| | |
the future.
|
|/ |
|
|\
| |
| | |
JSON formatting for FieldMask
|
| | |
|
|\ \
| |/
|/| |
Allow partially-trusted callers again.
|
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Fixes issue #552. (And yay, it looks like our build profile supports this...)
|
|/ |
|
|\
| |
| | |
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.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|\
| |
| | |
Remove the C# Freeze API
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|/ |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- Fix nupec paths
- Remove an obsolete part of the JSON build
- Add documentation and tests to reflection extension methods, and improve implementations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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?)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
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 :)
|
| |
|