Allow extra non-serializable fields to be passed into fromJson and ignored in toJson #783
+52
−13
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Analysis is failing because |
This was referenced Jan 1, 2021
|
Does anyone have any comments to add? Thoughts, ideas? |
|
@hacker1024 I assume Google will just ignore PRs that fail the tests. Fix them and try again? idk... |
…nored in toJson Document JsonKey.extra Add extra key to KeyConfig class Fixes
|
Any interest in this? |
|
Yes totally, in some cases it would be very usefull ! |
|
I'll need a changelog update and tests...and a rebase 😄 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR adds a feature to allow non-serialisable data to be passed into fromJson and ignored in toJson.
Syntax and an example use case is discussed in #780.
This is currently in draft status due to the lack of tests. I'm a little confused about how to implement testing here - is testing this feature alone in a class good enough, or does it need to be tested with other regular fields as well?
Resolves #780.