Redesign `Into` derive macro #248

ilslv · 2023-03-16T13:41:42Z

Synopsis

This PR is a part of replacing all attributes having syn::Meta syntax to custom parsing.

Solution

Replace #[into(types(i32, "&str"))] with #[from(i32, &str)] and add support for deriving multi-field structs and enum variants with #[from((<tuple>), (<tuple>), ...)].

Checklist

Documentation is updated (if required)
Tests are added/updated (if required)
CHANGELOG entry is added (if required)

…haustive`

…ature

# Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md # README.md # impl/Cargo.toml # impl/doc/debug.md # impl/doc/display.md # impl/src/fmt/debug.rs # impl/src/fmt/display.rs # impl/src/fmt/mod.rs # impl/src/fmt/parsing.rs # impl/src/lib.rs # src/fmt.rs # tests/compile_fail/debug/both_fmt_and_skip_on_field.stderr # tests/compile_fail/debug/legacy_bound_syntax.stderr # tests/compile_fail/debug/legacy_fmt_syntax.stderr # tests/compile_fail/debug/unknown_attribute.stderr # tests/compile_fail/display/unknown_attribute.stderr

JelteF · 2023-03-18T19:55:11Z

It's a bit hard to review this as it also contains all the changes from #241. Could you create a PR on your own where the base branch is the from-attribute branch? That way the diff doesn't contain so much unrelated stuff and it's easier to comment on the actual changes that are made for this one.

JelteF · 2023-03-18T19:56:30Z

impl/doc/into.md

+thing to note is that this derive doesn't actually generate an implementation
+for the `Into` trait. Instead, it derives `From` for the values contained in
+the struct and thus has an indirect implementation of `Into` as
+[recommended by the docs][1].


Suggested change

[recommended by the docs][1].

[recommended by the Rust docs for `Into`][1].

JelteF · 2023-03-18T19:58:08Z

impl/doc/into.md

+For structs that have multiple fields `.into()` extract tuple containing the
+desired content for each field.


Suggested change

For structs that have multiple fields `.into()` extract tuple containing the

desired content for each field.

For structs that have multiple fields `.into()` extracts a tuple containing the

desired content for each field.

JelteF · 2023-03-18T19:59:55Z

impl/doc/into.md

-The behaviour is a bit different when deriving for a struct with multiple
-fields, since it returns a tuple. For instance when deriving for a tuple struct
-with two fields like this:
+To specify concrete types to derive convert into use `#[into(<types>)]`.


This sentence is a bit strange, maybe something like this:

Suggested change

To specify concrete types to derive convert into use `#[into(<types>)]`.

Use `#[into(<types>)]` to specify the concrete types that you want to convert the type into.

JelteF · 2023-03-18T20:02:08Z

impl/doc/into.md

-}
-```
+#[derive(Debug, Into, PartialEq)]
+#[into(owned, ref(i32), ref_mut)]


So into(owned) is equivalent to into(types({current_type}))? Do we really need owned then?

I think a better example would be to use ref(i64)

hmm, actually what's the difference between ref(i64) and simply using &i64?

@JelteF here ref/ref_mut control Self type representation, while &i64 controls target type.

ref(i64) means impl Into<&i64> for &MyType, while &i64 means only impl Into<&i64> for MyType.

JelteF · 2023-07-08T19:57:13Z

@ilslv @tyranron now that #241 is merged, let's rebase this one. That should make it much easier to review.

ilslv · 2023-07-08T19:59:52Z

@JelteF I was planning to do it next week 👍

# Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md # Cargo.toml # impl/doc/from.md # impl/doc/into.md # impl/src/fmt/mod.rs # impl/src/from.rs # impl/src/lib.rs # impl/src/parsing.rs # tests/compile_fail/from/legacy_enum_attribute.stderr # tests/compile_fail/from/legacy_struct_attribute.stderr # tests/compile_fail/from/multiple_enum_attributes.stderr # tests/compile_fail/from/multiple_struct_attributes.stderr # tests/compile_fail/from/struct_tuple_no_parens.stderr # tests/compile_fail/from/struct_tuple_too_long.stderr # tests/compile_fail/from/struct_tuple_too_short.stderr # tests/into.rs

tyranron

@ilslv I've unified some repeated code (in utils module you've referred to from via cfg clause, but no actual use has been introduced), and corrected docs a llitle bit. Everything else seem nice enough.

@JelteF would you like to take a look, or we can merge it?

## Synopsis This PR is a part of replacing all attributes having `syn::Meta` syntax to custom parsing, similarly to #241, #248. Paves the way for #285, and possibly other enhancements such as an opt-in #123. ## Solution Implement custom attribute parsing without `utils::State`. Co-authored-by: Kai Ren <tyranron@gmail.com>

ilslv and others added 30 commits February 9, 2023 15:21

WIP

518c1b1

Add tests

99cb368

Add tests

a062ce1

Docs and clippy

7f24761

Fix unit tests

845558e

Docs

6211b1a

Port compile_fail tests from Display derive macro

e5ef86e

More compile_fail tests

8c8f9ca

CHANGELOG

6e82741

Reimplement core::fmt::DebugTuple to add support for `finish_non_ex…

7080be8

…haustive`

Docs fmt corrections

20a0cb0

Minor correction

8c58553

Minor correction

5a8cf3a

Minor corrections [skip ci]

558c2f0

Restructure the modules and guard Debug under a separate debug fe…

819454e

…ature

Implement syn::Type parsing

aa2d332

Simplify syn::Type parsing with assumptions

20d107e

Attributes parsing

ea8e31c

WIP

0b6ca7b

WIP

ce2cd00

WIP

61f1a16

Implementation that covers all existing test cases

0d489d6

Exhaustively cover struct with unit tests

382f185

Exhaustively cover enum and generics with unit tests

eac8e27

More unit tests for generic structs

1ee8c09

More unit tests for generic enums

ef8fa47

More unit tests for generics

f4f874b

More unit tests for generics

7df415e

More unit tests for generics

87e1058

CHANGELOG

3a4a893

ilslv marked this pull request as ready for review March 17, 2023 13:29

JelteF added this to the 1.0.0 milestone Mar 18, 2023

JelteF reviewed Mar 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

tyranron mentioned this pull request Mar 24, 2023

Update syn requirement from 1.0.81 to 2.0.6 #251

Merged

zohnannor mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2023

Support multiple attribute occurrences #265

Closed

3 tasks

JelteF mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2023

affix is confusing with outer-level enum display formatting #142

Open

ilslv added 5 commits July 14, 2023 11:44

Corrections

5d77999

Corrections

efc860b

Corrections

7a4de17

Corrections

5c1823e

ilslv requested review from JelteF and tyranron July 14, 2023 11:12

tyranron assigned ilslv Jul 14, 2023

tyranron added 3 commits July 14, 2023 19:25

Strip repeated code

33767ab

Correct docs

6898e00

Correct tests

08d35f5

tyranron approved these changes Jul 14, 2023

View reviewed changes

JelteF approved these changes Jul 15, 2023

View reviewed changes

JelteF merged commit fdf7fe1 into JelteF:master Jul 15, 2023
16 checks passed

MegaBluejay mentioned this pull request Aug 9, 2023

Refactor AsRef and AsMut derives #286

Merged

3 tasks

tyranron mentioned this pull request Aug 9, 2023

derive(Into) lost the ability to convert into particular fields #287

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Redesign `Into` derive macro #248

Redesign `Into` derive macro #248

ilslv commented Mar 16, 2023 •

edited

JelteF commented Mar 18, 2023

JelteF Mar 18, 2023

JelteF Mar 18, 2023

JelteF Mar 18, 2023 •

edited

JelteF Mar 18, 2023 •

edited

JelteF Mar 18, 2023

JelteF Mar 18, 2023

tyranron Jul 10, 2023

JelteF commented Jul 8, 2023

ilslv commented Jul 8, 2023

tyranron left a comment

	[recommended by the docs][1].
	[recommended by the Rust docs for `Into`][1].

		For structs that have multiple fields `.into()` extract tuple containing the
		desired content for each field.

	To specify concrete types to derive convert into use `#[into(<types>)]`.
	Use `#[into(<types>)]` to specify the concrete types that you want to convert the type into.

Redesign Into derive macro #248

Redesign Into derive macro #248

Conversation

ilslv commented Mar 16, 2023 • edited

Synopsis

Solution

Checklist

JelteF commented Mar 18, 2023

JelteF Mar 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JelteF Mar 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JelteF Mar 18, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JelteF Mar 18, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JelteF Mar 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JelteF Mar 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tyranron Jul 10, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JelteF commented Jul 8, 2023

ilslv commented Jul 8, 2023

tyranron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Redesign `Into` derive macro #248

Redesign `Into` derive macro #248

ilslv commented Mar 16, 2023 •

edited

JelteF Mar 18, 2023 •

edited

JelteF Mar 18, 2023 •

edited