-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 588
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
fieldIndexByName: extract type from interface in fieldIndexByName #370
fieldIndexByName: extract type from interface in fieldIndexByName #370
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you provide a test case which exercises this issue please.
5434736
to
48c0cea
Compare
Sure, I added it in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems to cause a regression, when I test here I got:
~~~ FAIL: (Terst)
type_go_struct_test.go:31:
FAIL (==)
got: ,,,b1 (*otto._object=ptr)
expected: a1,a2,a3,b1
--- FAIL: TestGoStructEmbeddedFields (0.00s)
FAIL
FAIL github.com/robertkrimen/otto 1.271s
440d6db
to
6b89d43
Compare
Yeah, sorry, my fault. Some time passed since I did this and I was on my first Golang works. Earlier today I was not aligned to master so I wasn't running tests correctly for some reason. I looked at this again and my approach of totally removing the check was nonsense. I think this is OK now. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry to be a pain, could you rebase to master so that we get github action tests firing please.
69437f3
to
953fe8e
Compare
Hello, of course, I just did it 👍 |
Fix panic when handling a pointer to a struct. Fixes robertkrimen#369
Fix #369
This fixes the issue with no apparent regressions, but since I don't know why this check was in place, I'm not sure that's the right solution.