Allow using rfl::AddTagsToVariants with rfl::Generic and same-name-different-namespace structs
#467
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @jmcken8, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request enhances the rfl::AddTagsToVariants functionality by ensuring that fully qualified type names are used as tags, which resolves previous issues with rfl::Generic types causing name collisions and allows for proper serialization of same-name structs across different namespaces. This change slightly increases the size of serialized formats but significantly improves robustness and flexibility.
Highlights
- Core Logic Change: Modified
rfl::parsing::VariantAlternativeWrapper::make_tagto no longer strip namespaces from type names when generating tags forrfl::AddTagsToVariants. This ensures that fully qualified type names are used as tags, resolving issues with name collisions. - Support for
rfl::Genericin Variants: Enabled the correct serialization and deserialization ofrfl::Generictypes when they are part of arfl::Variantorstd::variantandrfl::AddTagsToVariantsis applied. Previously,std::vector<Generic>andrfl::Object<Generic>would both be tagged as 'Generic', leading to compiler errors due to duplicate field names. - Support for Same-Name-Different-Namespace Structs: Improved compatibility for structs that share the same name but reside in different namespaces (e.g.,
NamespaceA::MessageandNamespaceB::Message). These can now be correctly serialized as variant alternatives using their fully qualified names as tags. - New Test Cases: Added comprehensive test cases in
tests/json/test_add_tag_to_variant.cppto validate the new behavior forrfl::Genericwithin variants and for structs with identical names in different namespaces.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request modifies rfl::AddTagsToVariants to include full type names with namespaces when generating tags for variant alternatives, resolving issues with rfl::Generic and enabling the use of structs with identical names from different namespaces. The new tests validate these improvements. I've provided suggestions for the new test file to enhance comment clarity, code formatting, and test suite organization.
76961ba to
2775153
Compare
…structs The first one was the main reason for this change; the second one was a result of applying the change. Added tests for both. The issue was that both `std::vector<Generic>` and `rfl::Object<Generic>` were getting the type name 'Generic', which caused a compiler error due to duplicated field names. This will slightly increase the size of serialized formats when using the AddTagsToVariants, but it seems like a worthwhile change.
2775153 to
ef5e781
Compare
|
@jmcken8 IMO, the additional size needed for namespaces, which are often nested, means that this change should be of an opt-in variety, as in |
The first one was the main reason for this change; the second one (ex:
a::Messageandb::Message) was a positive result of applying the change. Added tests for both.The issue was that both
std::vector<Generic>andrfl::Object<Generic>were getting the type name 'Generic', which caused a compiler error due to duplicated field names.This will slightly increase the size of serialized formats when using the AddTagsToVariants, but it seems like a worthwhile change.