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

field using types turned into array when declared(params) #2112

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

braktar
Copy link
Contributor

@braktar braktar commented Oct 5, 2020

It seems that the recent works on declared change the interaction between 'declared' and the 'types' field

@grape-bot
Copy link

grape-bot commented Oct 5, 2020

1 Warning
⚠️ Unless you’re refactoring existing code, please update CHANGELOG.md.

Here's an example of a CHANGELOG.md entry:

* [#2112](https://github.com/ruby-grape/grape/pull/2112): Field using type turned into array when declared(params) - [@braktar](https://github.com/braktar).

Generated by 🚫 danger

@dblock
Copy link
Member

dblock commented Oct 5, 2020

what was the behavior in 1.3.x, 1.4.x?

either way looks like a bug, another one... /cc: @tlconnor

@dblock
Copy link
Member

dblock commented Oct 5, 2020

Related #2103

@braktar
Copy link
Contributor Author

braktar commented Oct 5, 2020

Before the integration of #2103 the spec passed successfully

@braktar
Copy link
Contributor Author

braktar commented Oct 5, 2020

Here is a fix which avoid the misinterpretation of the type

@braktar
Copy link
Contributor Author

braktar commented Oct 5, 2020

That's strange that the type of empty_typed_arr turned from Array[String] to [String] when arrived into handle_passed_param

@dblock
Copy link
Member

dblock commented Oct 5, 2020

Let's extend tests with Hash and Set along with Array?

if type == 'Hash' && !has_children
{}
elsif type == 'Array' || type&.start_with?('[')
elsif type == 'Array' || type && type.start_with?('[') && !type.include?(',')
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You are right @dblock that working with Strings here is not ideal. I don't know enough to know if there is a better alternative.

@braktar
Copy link
Contributor Author

braktar commented Oct 6, 2020

Let's extend tests with Hash and Set along with Array?

I don't really see what should exhibit these tests, as the only ambiguity is between types : [x, y] and type: Array[x, y] which both give type: [x, y] while processed.

It seems to require a deeper investigation

@braktar braktar changed the title field using type turned into array when declared(params) field using types turned into array when declared(params) Oct 6, 2020
@dblock
Copy link
Member

dblock commented Oct 6, 2020

Let's extend tests with Hash and Set along with Array?

I don't really see what should exhibit these tests, as the only ambiguity is between types : [x, y] and type: Array[x, y] which both give type: [x, y] while processed.

It seems to require a deeper investigation

I mean what happens if requires :bar, type: Hash do ...?

@dblock
Copy link
Member

dblock commented Oct 9, 2020

@stanhu isn't this the same?

@stanhu
Copy link
Contributor

stanhu commented Oct 9, 2020

Yes, it's the same. I just picked the commit in #2117.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants