Field dependencies #96
Conversation
| @@ -116,6 +121,7 @@ pub struct FieldBuilderAttr<'a> { | |||
| pub default: Option<syn::Expr>, | |||
| pub deprecated: Option<&'a syn::Attribute>, | |||
| pub setter: SetterSettings, | |||
| pub implementations: Option<Vec<Vec<sus_impls::Dependency>>>, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: I see that you have a pub type Implementation = Vec<Dependency>; in sus-impls. Wouldn't it be better to use it here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also - does it have to be an Option? If no requires setting it given, why not generate a single implementation where all the fields are Generic expect for the current fields which would be Unset?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did indeed use the type Implementation but I did not push the changes yet.
I wanted to avoid allocating vectors in case that the requires attribute was not used. But I will find out if I should accept that tradeoff to simplify generating methods when I do use implementations.
| "requires" => { | ||
| let Some((field_names, ordinal)) = field_names_with_current_orinal | ||
| else { | ||
| return Err(Error::new_spanned(assign, "`requires` is only allowed as a field attribute, not as a struct attribute.")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find this error message a bit confusing. I think something like "`requires` is not allowed in `field_defaults`" would better convey the meaning.
| _ => return Err(Error::new_spanned(expr, "attribute only allows str values")), | ||
| }, | ||
| syn::Expr::Lit(syn::ExprLit { | ||
| lit: syn::Lit::Str(str), .. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm kind of surprised rustfmt okayed it...
|
BTW, regarding sus-impls - since it's supposed to be a generic crate, wouldn't it be better to have it work with field ordinals instead of |
Closes #14