-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
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(client/v2): support definitions of inner messages #22890
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
96b90b7
add: support definitions of inner messages
JulianToledano 7b27699
changelog
JulianToledano 0a7bd84
fix: correct protofield num
JulianToledano 0f9cec2
add: flatten field are added in the foo.bar format
JulianToledano 622eff2
add: godoc + lint
JulianToledano 9d4c075
godoc
JulianToledano 4f2ae30
Merge branch 'main' into julian/autocli-inner-messages
JulianToledano 7e97cbb
fix: simapp mod
JulianToledano abed3e2
fix: binding of 3th level fields
JulianToledano 9f01468
lint
JulianToledano e805791
readme
JulianToledano bc53fd1
fix: system test
JulianToledano File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
We actually don't want the user to have to precise this in their autocli options.
I think ideally it should just work.
if you put
permissions
you it set the whole struct. If you putpermissions.level
it it checks the inner field. I think splitting by.
may do the job here right.The big q is how many layer do we accept. Can you do
permissions.foo.bar
as well?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.
ok. If you set only
permissions
should it flatten the whole struct or should expect a json?In the first case, should we provide an option to specify a json file? it may be better ux if message is really big.
About the layer that's a good question. I'll try to find a recursive way so there's no limit to it.
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.
I meant, it should expect a json yeah, like today
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.
It can get messy if you have multiple input expecting a json, so to simplify things I'd say no.
If you want a better UX you break out the json in multiple inputs by using the feature added here