Remove public access modifier for internal class _URLEncodedFormEncoder

[mattt]

Goals ⚽

Ensure consistency within the public API.

Implementation Details 🚧

When testing out swift-api-inventory on Alamofire, I saw this line in the output, which stuck out because of the leading underscore:

init _URLEncodedFormEncoder(context: URLEncodedFormContext, codingPath: [CodingKey], boolEncoding: URLEncodedFormEncoder.BoolEncoding, dataEncoding: URLEncodedFormEncoder.DataEncoding, dateEncoding: URLEncodedFormEncoder.DateEncoding)

Looking at the source, _URLEncodedFormEncoder is an internal type, but the initializer showed up in the inventory because of its public access modifier.

Alamofire/Source/URLEncodedFormEncoder.swift

Lines 403 to 414 in 262fc46

	final class _URLEncodedFormEncoder {
	var codingPath: [CodingKey]
	// Returns an empty dictionary, as this encoder doesn't support userInfo.
	var userInfo: [CodingUserInfoKey: Any] { return [:] }
	let context: URLEncodedFormContext
	private let boolEncoding: URLEncodedFormEncoder.BoolEncoding
	private let dataEncoding: URLEncodedFormEncoder.DataEncoding
	private let dateEncoding: URLEncodedFormEncoder.DateEncoding
	public init(context: URLEncodedFormContext,

This change removes public to give that initializer an implicit internal access level to match its enclosing type _URLEncodedFormEncoder.

Testing Details 🔍

I ran the test suite locally and await the CI to finish to confirm that this change doesn't break anything. For this kind of issue, it seems like a linter rule would be more appropriate than a unit test. Reading through SwiftLint's list of rules, I didn't see anything that does this yet. I'll ask around to see if folks think that would be helpful, and if so, write that up.

[jshier]

This method isn't actually public, due to the type not being public, right? So really this seems like something the compiler should warn about, unless there's a use case I'm missing here.

In any case, thanks for this, we should be good to merge, as the test failures are those tests being flaky.

[cnoon]

Thanks @mattt! 🍻

[mattt]

This method isn't actually public, due to the type not being public, right? So really this seems like something the compiler should warn about, unless there's a use case I'm missing here.

I know, right? I was genuinely surprised that this didn't generate a compiler warning. You make a good point — I think I'll bring this up on the forums / file a bug first.