Skip to content
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

Allow value comparers for supertypes of the mapping's type #30939

Merged
1 commit merged into from
May 22, 2023

Conversation

roji
Copy link
Member

@roji roji commented May 20, 2023

Necessary for primitive collection, where e.g. the comparer has type IList but the type mapping is for the concrete List.

Related to/part of #25364

Necessary for primitive collection, where e.g. the comparer has type
IList<int> but the type mapping is for the concrete List<int>.

Related to/part of dotnet#25364
@roji roji requested a review from a team May 20, 2023 14:43
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 20, 2023

Hello @roji!

Because this pull request has the auto-merge label, I will be glad to assist with helping to merge this pull request once all check-in policies pass.

p.s. you can customize the way I help with merging this pull request, such as holding this pull request until a specific person approves. Simply @mention me (@msftbot) and give me an instruction to get started! Learn more here.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 20, 2023

Apologies, while this PR appears ready to be merged, I've been configured to only merge when all checks have explicitly passed. The following integrations have not reported any progress on their checks and are blocking auto-merge:

  1. Azure Pipelines

These integrations are possibly never going to report a check, and unblocking auto-merge likely requires a human being to update my configuration to exempt these integrations from requiring a passing check.

Give feedback on this
From the bot dev team

We've tried to tune the bot such that it posts a comment like this only when auto-merge is blocked for exceptional, non-intuitive reasons. When the bot's auto-merge capability is properly configured, auto-merge should operate as you would intuitively expect and you should not see any spurious comments.

Please reach out to us at fabricbotservices@microsoft.com to provide feedback if you believe you're seeing this comment appear spuriously. Please note that we usually are unable to update your bot configuration on your team's behalf, but we're happy to help you identify your bot admin.

Copy link

@IslomMakhsudov IslomMakhsudov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good job man

@ghost ghost merged commit c908aaf into dotnet:main May 22, 2023
7 checks passed
@roji roji deleted the ComparerInheritance branch May 22, 2023 09:14
$"Expected {clrType}, got {parameters.Comparer?.Type}");
if (parameters.Comparer?.Type == clrType)
if (parameters.Comparer?.Type.IsAssignableFrom(clrType) == true)
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not familiar with the EFCore codebase, but could this be simplified from:

if (parameters.Comparer?.Type.IsAssignableFrom(clrType) == true)

to:

if (parameters.Comparer?.Type.IsAssignableFrom(clrType))

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It could be null, so the options are

if (parameters.Comparer?.Type.IsAssignableFrom(clrType) == true)

and

if (parameters.Comparer?.Type.IsAssignableFrom(clrType) ?? false)

Copy link

@vslee vslee Jun 21, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point. And I wouldn't have ever have thought of your second option.

This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants