chore: keep pointer receiver consistent in generated go code #7219
+2
−7
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
Signed-off-by: Justin Chadwell <[email protected]>
sipsma
reviewed
May 2, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this will change the behavior such that previously we'd return "" for nil structs but now we will return null.
No tests are failing, which is good, but it seems like it might at least trigger this log (though just in theory, worth confirmation): https://github.com/sipsma/dagger/blob/df31953deab1f0deb8f1b9ed8872f595b0de67f2/core/interface.go#L28-L28
Maybe it's worth removing that log if it's now expected to get hit? Just worth a double check cc @vito
|
This PR is stale because it has been open 14 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Alternative to #7216 - turns out, #7216 is an issue but for the opposite reason.
MarshalJSONshould always be defined on the base, not on a pointer receiver - we had mismatched between the object + interface in our codegen, this PR updates our interface to be the pointer receiver.Sorry @aweris 😢