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.)
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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 :)
Jon Skeet
Jan Tattermusch