-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
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
feat: add get_default_empty_record
#40
Conversation
WalkthroughThis update introduces a new function Changes
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
@coderabbitai review |
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.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 2
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- src/serde_introspection.rs (2 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
src/serde_introspection.rs (1)
- 117-148: The example provided in the documentation for
get_default_empty_record
is clear and demonstrates the function's usage effectively. It's good practice to include such examples in the documentation, as it helps users understand how to use the function in their code. No changes are needed here, but ensure that the documentation stays up-to-date if the function's behavior changes in the future.
Hi @lucatrv ! First and foremost, thank you for your contribution! Can you please provide a use case for this function to be useful? I am not sure I understand why, for example, and when, I would use it. For example, the code you provided: #[derive(serde::Deserialize, PartialEq, Debug)]
struct Record {
#[serde(default = "default_string")]
label: String,
#[serde(default = "default_f64")]
value: f64,
}
fn default_string() -> String {
String::from("default")
}
fn default_f64() -> f64 {
1.0
}
let empty_record = get_default_empty_record::<Record>().unwrap();
assert_eq!(
empty_record,
Record {
label: String::from("default"),
value: 1.0
}
); How is it different from this, without using #[derive(serde::Deserialize, PartialEq, Debug)]
struct Record {
label: String,
value: f64,
}
impl Default for Record {
fn default() -> Self {
Self {
label: default_string(),
value: default_f64(),
}
}
}
fn default_string() -> String {
String::from("default")
}
fn default_f64() -> f64 {
1.0
}
let empty_record = Record::default();
assert_eq!(
empty_record,
Record {
label: String::from("default"),
value: 1.0
}
); |
@iddm I agree that the example above is trivial and can easily be implemented as you showed, however it was intended just to show how the Please consider however that often we deal with long deserialize structs having most fields implementing the In general, any time the From another point of view, IMHO what you wrote could also be applied to most helping functions. For instance we could certainly live for instance also without the |
f729679
to
06dacf9
Compare
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.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- src/serde_introspection.rs (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/serde_introspection.rs
06dacf9
to
1af9f95
Compare
I added some more explanation in the docstring and example. |
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.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- src/serde_introspection.rs (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/serde_introspection.rs
I see. Thank you for the explanation. What do you think about renaming the function to |
1af9f95
to
dbcdb37
Compare
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.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- src/serde_introspection.rs (2 hunks)
Additional comments: 2
src/serde_introspection.rs (2)
- 117-168: The implementation of
get_default_serde_record
is concise and leverages Serde's deserialization capabilities effectively to instantiate a default record. This approach is particularly useful when combined with Serde's#[serde(default = "path")]
attribute, as it simplifies struct initialization without manually implementing theDefault
trait. The documentation and example provided are clear and demonstrate the function's utility well.However, it's important to ensure that all potential error cases are handled appropriately when using this function in a broader context. Specifically, consider adding error handling advice in the documentation for consumers of this API, as deserialization errors can occur for various reasons (e.g., missing required fields, type mismatches).
Overall, the addition of
get_default_serde_record
enhances the library's functionality by providing a convenient way to obtain default instances of structs that are compatible with Serde's deserialization process.
- 214-251: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [174-250]
The test cases provided for
get_default_serde_record
andserde_introspect
functions are comprehensive and cover the basic functionality expected from these utilities. The tests validate the correct instantiation of structs with default values and the introspection of serialization names for both structs and enums.One suggestion for improvement is to include more edge cases in the test suite. For example, testing structs with more complex nested structures or enums with associated values could provide additional confidence in the robustness of these functions. Additionally, considering negative test cases, such as attempting to deserialize a struct with missing required fields, could help document the expected behavior in error scenarios.
Overall, the tests are well-structured and serve their purpose of validating the functionality introduced in this PR.
I did as suggested, see if you like it now otherwise please feel free to elaborate further as you will. |
dbcdb37
to
07c970a
Compare
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.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- src/serde_introspection.rs (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/serde_introspection.rs
07c970a
to
c8bbf70
Compare
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.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- src/serde_introspection.rs (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/serde_introspection.rs
Thank you for the contribution and taking time to implement this! |
Summary by CodeRabbit