Fix HasChange when using nested schema.Set

[obourdon]

This fixes #361

[paultyng]

@obourdon this seems like a reasonable fix, do you mind adding some testing around the issue to demonstrate the problems (and prevent regression)?

Is it possible the AWS code should be modified to use HashEqual instead? Currently the way the SDK does most set handling is via the hash, this is changing a bit in 0.12 but will probably remain this way in this version of the SDK for the time being.

[obourdon]

@paultyng many thanks for the comments above. Will definitely look into putting some tests and also have a look at your suggestion about AWS HashEqual. I just fixed the formatting as I did not see that the CI had failed. Many thanks again

[paultyng]

The more I thought about this, I think this approach to Equal is your best bet, as HasChange has different mean than the set hashing which is mostly about matching up values for diffing. Will have someone take a peek, but we'll need some test coverage to merge.

[obourdon]

@paultyng test has been added and I have verified that reverting commit
48bd90d fails and succeed otherwise running:

go test ./... -run 'TestSet.*' -count=1

[appilon]

We have recently pushed V2's history to master, V2 is now the mainline of development, I am retargeting your PR to v1-maint. Apologies for any inconvenience, for more information on V2 of the SDK, please see our discuss post

[appilon]

☝️ That was a stock message. Sorry about the delay on this PR, I will try and take a look at this very soon, it may need to land in V2 if it causes some kind of breaking change.

[obourdon]

@appilon no pb at all, just let me know if you need me for anything.

[paddycarver]

This looks good to me. Thanks for contributing!

[ghost]

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.