[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-735?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845716#action_12845716
]
David Reiss commented on THRIFT-735:
------------------------------------
> I don't think that using a type in a required field limits the flexibility of
> that type. It certainly limits the flexibility of the struct that uses that
> type - but that's fundamentally intentional.
I disagree. Compare...
{noformat}
struct Contained {
whatever
}
struct Outer {
1: required Contained contents;
}
{noformat}
fields can be added or removed from Contained with no problems. If the
recipient gets an Outer with a Contained that has no intelligible fields, it's
no problem.
{noformat}
union Contained {
whatever
}
struct Outer {
1: required Contained contents;
}
{noformat}
Now, if you add something to Contained, suddenly Outers can fail validation.
I definitely sympathize with the need no be able to easily check a
deeply-nested structure, but I don't think "require all unions to be non-empty"
should be the only option. What do you think of a parameter to validate to
control whether an empty union should be considered a failure. It would apply
to unions in all contexts, not just required fields.
> Required field checking is broken when the field type is a Union struct
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-735
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-735
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Compiler (Java), Library (Java)
> Affects Versions: 0.2
> Reporter: Bryan Duxbury
> Assignee: Bryan Duxbury
> Fix For: 0.3
>
> Attachments: thrift-735.patch
>
>
> The validate() method on generated structs verifies that required fields are
> set after validation. However, if the type of the field is a Union struct,
> then just checking that the field isn't null is not a valid check. The value
> may be a non-null union, but have an unset field. (We encountered this when
> deserializing a type that had a union for a field, and the union's set value
> was an enum value that had been removed from the definition, making it a
> skip.)
> In order to perform the correct validation, if the value is a Union, then we
> must also check that the set field and value are non-null.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
