filter reserved_numbers and reserved_names tuples when converting from gpb representation #111
Conversation
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
cheng81
changed the title
|
I seriously can't find any valid reason to keep the |
|
@bitwalker any chance we can get this reviewed? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The current implementation mistakenly uses
reserved_numberstuples coming fromgpbasproto3_msg, since thenamein the tuple matches the one used in the propermessagedefinition.The commit simply skips over those tuples, since to the best of my knowledge they are useless in the generated code: those fields are by definition not mentioned in the
protobufmessage, hence they will never be either written or read.This PR addresses #81