Add ExpressionMethod Generator

[viceroypenguin]

Fixes #2687

• Implement Generators framework
• Implement ExpressionMethodGenerator
• Implement Diagnostic messages for error messages to users.
• Implement SyntaxReceiver

[MaceWindu]

Looks good.
Does it make sense to handle some C# expressions, not supported by S.L.E, like ??, ?.?

[viceroypenguin]

Does it make sense to handle some C# expressions, not supported by S.L.E, like ??, ?.?

I think the compiler will catch that when actually compiling the generated code. Probably won't be descriptive to the user though. That's a whole 'nother level of analysis though. I'd say let's do that in v2 of this thing if it looks like an issue.

[sdanyliv]

I'ld like to see more complex tests with several parameters.

[viceroypenguin]

I'd like to see more complex tests with several parameters.

Added one more complicated one. Anything specific you'd like to see in another one?

[sdanyliv]

Well, it looks complicated for end user.

• Class should be defined as partial
• Method should be partial
• No way do define over property.

i suggest to change ExpressionMethodAttribute a little and maybe create base class. It should have at least one virtual method GetLambdaExpression. Then we can derive ExpressionMethodGenerator from base class return lambda in any case.

For generation we can always create static class MySuperClass_generated and generate methods in that class.

[viceroypenguin]

• static classes cannot have inheritance, so using a base class would eliminate automatic generation for extension methods.
• Also, inheritance reduces options on non-static classes (static method on a DTO that may be tiered for example).
• Without inheritance, if we want to connect auto-generation to original method, we will have to do convention based reflection for the related class/method. This is not very difficult, since the [GenerateExpressionMethod] attribute will indicate we need to go look for it. However, it would require some minor work to tell l2db how to look.

[viceroypenguin]

Merry Christmas @sdanyliv - Now doesn't require partial on methods (still requires partial on classes though, no way around that) and supports properties. Still want to write some more unit tests, so not ready for merge yet.

[MaceWindu]

There are 4 oracle tests that changed baselines due to sequence value change.

addressed here #2758

[viceroypenguin]

@sdanyliv @MaceWindu any reason for or against this in 3.3.0? I don't particularly care, it was built on an idea from @sdanyliv

[MaceWindu]

/azp run test-all

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[MaceWindu]

@viceroypenguin I would say let's merge it after tests passed.

[sdanyliv]

Please check my comments.

[viceroypenguin]

/azp run test-all

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[MaceWindu]

/azp run test-all

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[MaceWindu]

I don't understand. Nothing big changed with last commits except merge with master, but now it doesn't build with a lot of errors...

[MaceWindu]

nevermind, just some glitch, after rebuild it complains about code referencing removed MethodName property

[MaceWindu]

@viceroypenguin, reminder about broken branch

[viceroypenguin]

Thanks @MaceWindu. Will revisit when I have time to do so.