Inner field of web::Query is public again (#2016) #2017
Merged
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
adamchalmers
force-pushed
the
patch-1
branch
from
bccabde to
1f76a92
Compare
|
Would appreciate a doc comment/test. You can edit the current one to use the public field if you like. And no need for a changelog entry since this is a beta revert. |
adamchalmers
force-pushed
the
patch-1
branch
from
1f76a92 to
7075f47
Compare
|
OK, added doctests to demonstrate how to use .0 or .into_inner. |
robjtede
reviewed
Feb 20, 2021
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
PR Type
Feature
PR Checklist
Overview
The v4 beta made Query's inner field private, but the discussion in the linked issue said that we should revert this change, as it doesn't prevent any bad behaviour.
Because none of the documentation or examples have mentioned using .0 syntax, I didn't think any documentation changes were necessary. I didn't think any tests were necessary either, as this doesn't add any logic, it merely exports a field. If you'd like me to add an example or test, I'd be happy to!
Closes #2016