Refactor Request/Response TryFrom impl to allow '?' on fallible calls #108
Conversation
| @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ pub fn expand_event(input: DeriveInput) -> syn::Result<TokenStream> { | |||
|
|
|||
| let event_type = ::ruma_events::EventContent::event_type(&self.content); | |||
|
|
|||
| let mut state = serializer.serialize_struct(stringify!(#ident), 7)?; | |||
| let mut state = serializer.serialize_struct(stringify!(#ident), 9)?; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can remove this I just wanted to remember to ask if we should be dealing with this and is there any chance this could be part of the bincode deserialization problem @MTRNord was asking about on matrix (either in the Ruma room or in matrix-rust-sdk)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jplatte had some ideas why bincode doesn't work I think. json does work fine (obviously. this is matrix. if it doesn't do json this wouldn't be matrix).
I still dont understand why it doesn't work with bincode :D I just removed bincode from my project
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, this has nothing to do with the bincode "expected valid JSON" error. If you want more details about that, ping me on Matrix.
| @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ impl Response { | |||
| } | |||
| ResponseField::NewtypeRawBody(_) => { | |||
| quote_spanned! {span=> | |||
| #field_name: response.into_body() | |||
| #field_name: resp.body().to_vec() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was wondering whether there would be a case like this. This now being a full copy of the response makes my whole idea moot unfortunately¹. I don't want to have worse runtime performance for somewhat nicer generated code.
I have another idea though: We could hide the repetitive
match <expr> {
Ok(val) => val,
Err(e) => return <error type>::new(<actual error>, <reponse / request>).into(),
}behind a helper function (or two, one for requests and one for responses). I hope that would make the macro code easier to read.
Does that makes sense to you? Do you have other ideas for how to make the code more readable?
¹: If you want a more in-depth explanation of why I don't think this can work (without try blocks
Work toward issue #6