Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
feat!: Serialised extensions #1371
feat!: Serialised extensions #1371
Changes from 13 commits
078da5d
066dcde
b9ae43a
f175105
c5ab7d0
0f3ec3e
6b923d8
6b7c788
bf071dc
0e3b160
e31839c
a47252a
4cd9af6
21642ea
8bcb85c
b243b17
7010d0e
ac834de
9990e78
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
maybe we could slightly emphasize that this is mostly the same as the previous case but PLUS a custom binary
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.
What about a missing custom validation func? In either case I think we just have to trust the cache, maybe with a warning, so I guess if the warning is the same then we don't have to distinguish, is that the plan?
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.
I'm not sure - in the case of missing validation function do you trust the cached signature or use the type scheme to generate the signature and check against cache as you would without custom validation?
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.
Good point. Given the validation function can only say one of two things - invalid, or use the type scheme - you can try the latter (which might reject if TypeArgs don't match the TypeParams, say) and see if that matches; that might get you an error, but even if the typescheme says ok, if there's a binary validation function that you haven't got, then that still has to be a warning
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.
Methinks we should not need
NoValidate
. One should useSignature::PolyFuncType
instead.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.
yes, moved it just to the test that used it
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.
presumably this extra
as_ref()
is needed? Code looks very similar to what we had before.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.
wasn't needed, removed
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.
I suspect the comment on the previous line can go (I suspect "later" meant "when we have implemented serialization", essentially!), please clarify if I'm wrong