-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 114
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
scylla-macros: attributes for better control over name checks #882
Merged
Lorak-mmk
merged 5 commits into
scylladb:main
from
piodul:macros-name-checking-improvements
Dec 15, 2023
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
4478f6a
scylla-macros: allow renaming fields in UDTs
piodul 37f17e2
scylla-macros: allow renaming fields in rows
piodul eaafc96
scylla-macros: simplify handling of flavor
piodul 344112a
scylla-macros: add skip_name_checks attribute to SerializeCql
piodul 39908a6
scylla-macros: add skip_name_checks attribute to SerializeRow
piodul File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to make this a new flavor instead of an attribute - one less place to make a mistake for a user. But seeing that it's a compile time error, maybe it doesn't matter?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not entirely sure either; implementation-wise it was more natural to add an attribute as it introduces very slight changes to how the
enforce_order
flavor generates code.One argument that I see for leaving it as a separate attribute is that it disables some safety checks, while both current flavors don't compromise on safety. It's good to make the less safe option more verbose IMO.
In the future we should consider adding support for tuple structs which very natually fit into the
enforce_order
+skip_name_checks
pattern, we could probably remove the currentskip_name_checks
attribute when doing that.