Fix conditional substructures #27
Conversation
TODO: Write unit tests to completely verify fix. Fixes digidotcom#25
| def is_substructure(field): | ||
| return isinstance(field, SubstructureField) or \ | ||
| isinstance(field, ConditionalField) and \ | ||
| isinstance(field.field, SubstructureField) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wondering if it might be better to do this polymorphically.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can change this. The main reason for changing is so that user's can add fields that behave similar to ConditionalField (wrapping something like a SubstructureField) without having to modify this code (Open/Closed Principle)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The other thing is that there are other fields that could wrap SubstructureField such as LengthField that should have similar logic. I'm fixing this with the change to use polymorphism (i.e. field.is_substructure()).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, this check is kind of a hack and I only really tested for the Substructure-in-Conditional case because that was the first obvious problem. If you've got a way to do this generally, by all means.
|
@mikewadsten, take a look at 2a8a86c. If that looks good, I'll pull it into master (it builds on your branch). |
|
@posborne Looks good to me. 👍 |
This fix mostly consists of making
PackerrecognizeSubstructureFieldinside a conditional field, and making sureConditionalField.getvalreturns None when the condition is not met. (Without the latter, it would always return the uninitialized substructure when accessed through the parent structure, e.g.message.f2)