Thanks Jens, Your info really helps! Now I can be assured that the irrelevant changes are safe to keep :)
Thanks, Wei On 4/19/16, 16:12, "Jens Geyer" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Wei Zheng, > >> Anyone knows the rationale behind this? > >There is a built-in mechanism for temporarily variables. It basically relies >on a special prefix plus an incremented counter. The numbers are incremented >to generate variable names that do not produce collisions. > >> I don't think this kind of change is harmful. > >Yep, correct. These are all only internal variable names, whose names are >only relevant in the given scope. > >> But it requires code change for irrelevant files, which is unexpected. > >You mean w/regard to your VCS? In theory, generated artifacts are not to be >added to the VCS because they can be generated from the IDL. But >nevertheless, in real world, one may indeed want to do exactly that, for a >number of reasons. But even then, at the end it is generated code, so nobody >should really care that much about it. Especially if IDL changes and >(generated) code changes are in the same commit. > >Have fun, >JensG > > > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >From: Wei Zheng >Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 11:39 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Variables name change for irrelevant methods > >Hi all, > >I made change to an existing .thrift file, by adding a new struct: > >struct NewRequest { > 1: required list<i64> txn_ids, >} > >After regenerating code, I do see the changes I want. But I also noticed >there are a bunch of files which are irrelevant to this change, but have >many variable names being changed, for example: > >Previously: > org.apache.thrift.protocol.TMap _map524 = >iprot.readMapBegin(); > struct.metadata = new >HashMap<Long,MetadataPpdResult>(2*_map524.size); > long _key525; > MetadataPpdResult _val526; > for (int _i527 = 0; _i527 < _map524.size; ++_i527) > >Now: > org.apache.thrift.protocol.TMap _map532 = >iprot.readMapBegin(); > struct.metadata = new >HashMap<Long,MetadataPpdResult>(2*_map532.size); > long _key533; > MetadataPpdResult _val534; > for (int _i535 = 0; _i535 < _map532.size; ++_i535) > >I don't think this kind of change is harmful. But it requires code change >for irrelevant files, which is unexpected. Anyone knows the rationale behind >this? > >Thanks, >Wei > >
