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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Append field number to accessors if there is conflict #6169

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 24, 2019
Merged

Append field number to accessors if there is conflict #6169

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 11 additions & 0 deletions php/tests/proto/test_wrapper_type_setters.proto
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -24,3 +24,14 @@ message TestWrapperSetters {

map<string, google.protobuf.StringValue> map_string_value = 13;
}

message TestWrapperAccessorConflicts {
int32 normal_vs_wrapper_value = 1;
google.protobuf.Int32Value normal_vs_wrapper = 2;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Appending the field number works for this example, but what if there was also a field named normal_vs_wrapper_value_2? I'm not suggesting that that is very likely, but WDYT about a more general solution to this problem that would guarantee no conflicts. For example, inside a class, create a container of names used for methods, and each time you generate a method, add it to the container, check for conflicts, and if there is a conflict, resolve it by appending an incrementing counter - keep incrementing until the name is unique. This would also cover any other possible cases of collision (I'm not sure if any other cases exist in PHP).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This will forces us to delay generating all accessors until we have traversed all fields of the same message. I feel this will be quite complicate.
For now, we used the same approach in java (which also has the problem of conflict after renaming)
In future, we would like to introducing some rules for naming a field, like no field can be named as a prefix of another field.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, sgtm.


int32 normal_vs_normal_value = 3;
int32 normal_vs_normal = 4;

google.protobuf.Int32Value wrapper_vs_wrapper_value = 5;
google.protobuf.Int32Value wrapper_vs_wrapper = 6;
}
38 changes: 38 additions & 0 deletions php/tests/wrapper_type_setters_test.php
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -16,6 +16,44 @@

class WrapperTypeSettersTest extends TestBase
{
public function testConflictNormalVsWrapper()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like both functions have been renamed with a number on the end. Is that necessary? Why not just rename one of them, and keep the other unchanged?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think that is necessary. One field may be added before the other, and we don't want to accidentally change which field user is calling.

Consider the case if int32 normal_vs_wrapper_value = 1; is added first, and user is calling getNormalVsWrapperValue(), then someone added google.protobuf.Int32Value normal_vs_wrapper = 2;. If we rename the field 1 but not field 2, that user is suddenly reading from field 2, which is a behavior change. Similar problem exist for the other ordering too. Not to mention that it is also not clear which field getNormalVsWrapperValue() is referring to.

{
$m = new Foo\TestWrapperAccessorConflicts();

$m->setNormalVsWrapperValue1(1);
$this->assertSame(1, $m->getNormalVsWrapperValue1());

$m->setNormalVsWrapperValue2(1);
$this->assertSame(1, $m->getNormalVsWrapperValue2());

$wrapper = new Int32Value(["value" => 1]);
$m->setNormalVsWrapper($wrapper);
$this->assertSame(1, $m->getNormalVsWrapper()->getValue());
}

public function testConflictNormalVsNormal()
{
$m = new Foo\TestWrapperAccessorConflicts();

$m->setNormalVsNormalValue(1);
$this->assertSame(1, $m->getNormalVsNormalValue());

$m->setNormalVsNormal(1);
$this->assertSame(1, $m->getNormalVsNormal());
}

public function testConflictWrapperVsWrapper()
{
$m = new Foo\TestWrapperAccessorConflicts();

$m->setWrapperVsWrapperValueValue(1);
$this->assertSame(1, $m->getWrapperVsWrapperValueValue());

$wrapper = new Int32Value(["value" => 1]);
$m->setWrapperVsWrapperValue5($wrapper);
$this->assertSame(1, $m->getWrapperVsWrapperValue5()->getValue());
}

/**
* @dataProvider gettersAndSettersDataProvider
*/
Expand Down
68 changes: 55 additions & 13 deletions src/google/protobuf/compiler/php/php_generator.cc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -655,27 +655,58 @@ void GenerateOneofField(const OneofDescriptor* oneof, io::Printer* printer) {

void GenerateFieldAccessor(const FieldDescriptor* field, bool is_descriptor,
io::Printer* printer) {
bool need_other_name_for_accessor = false;
bool need_other_name_for_wrapper_accessor = false;
const Descriptor* desc = field->containing_type();

if (!field->is_repeated() &&
field->cpp_type() == FieldDescriptor::CPPTYPE_MESSAGE &&
IsWrapperType(field)) {
// Check if there is any field called xxx_value
const FieldDescriptor* other =
desc->FindFieldByName(StrCat(field->name(), "_value"));
if (other != NULL) {
need_other_name_for_wrapper_accessor = true;
}
}

if (strings::EndsWith(field->name(), "_value")) {
std::size_t pos = (field->name()).find("_value");
string name = (field->name()).substr(0, pos);
const FieldDescriptor* other = desc->FindFieldByName(name);
if (other != NULL &&
!other->is_repeated() &&
other->cpp_type() == FieldDescriptor::CPPTYPE_MESSAGE &&
IsWrapperType(other)) {
need_other_name_for_accessor = true;
}
}

const OneofDescriptor* oneof = field->containing_oneof();

// Generate getter.
if (oneof != NULL) {
GenerateFieldDocComment(printer, field, is_descriptor, kFieldGetter);
printer->Print(
"public function get^camel_name^()\n"
"public function get^camel_name^^field_number^()\n"
"{\n"
" return $this->readOneof(^number^);\n"
"}\n\n",
"camel_name", UnderscoresToCamelCase(field->name(), true),
"number", IntToString(field->number()));
"number", IntToString(field->number()),
"field_number", need_other_name_for_accessor ?
StrCat(field->number()) : "");
} else {
GenerateFieldDocComment(printer, field, is_descriptor, kFieldGetter);
printer->Print(
"public function get^camel_name^()\n"
"public function get^camel_name^^field_number^()\n"
"{\n"
" return $this->^name^;\n"
"}\n\n",
"camel_name", UnderscoresToCamelCase(field->name(), true), "name",
field->name());
"camel_name", UnderscoresToCamelCase(field->name(), true),
"name", field->name(),
"field_number", need_other_name_for_accessor ?
StrCat(field->number()) : "");
}

// For wrapper types, generate an additional getXXXValue getter
Expand All @@ -684,21 +715,28 @@ void GenerateFieldAccessor(const FieldDescriptor* field, bool is_descriptor,
field->cpp_type() == FieldDescriptor::CPPTYPE_MESSAGE &&
IsWrapperType(field)) {
GenerateWrapperFieldGetterDocComment(printer, field);

printer->Print(
"public function get^camel_name^Value()\n"
"public function get^camel_name^Value^field_number1^()\n"
"{\n"
" $wrapper = $this->get^camel_name^();\n"
" $wrapper = $this->get^camel_name^^field_number2^();\n"
" return is_null($wrapper) ? null : $wrapper->getValue();\n"
"}\n\n",
"camel_name", UnderscoresToCamelCase(field->name(), true));
"camel_name", UnderscoresToCamelCase(field->name(), true),
"field_number1", need_other_name_for_wrapper_accessor ?
StrCat(field->number()) : "",
"field_number2", need_other_name_for_accessor ?
StrCat(field->number()) : "");
}

// Generate setter.
GenerateFieldDocComment(printer, field, is_descriptor, kFieldSetter);
printer->Print(
"public function set^camel_name^($var)\n"
"public function set^camel_name^^field_number^($var)\n"
"{\n",
"camel_name", UnderscoresToCamelCase(field->name(), true));
"camel_name", UnderscoresToCamelCase(field->name(), true),
"field_number", need_other_name_for_accessor ?
StrCat(field->number()) : "");

Indent(printer);

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -798,13 +836,17 @@ void GenerateFieldAccessor(const FieldDescriptor* field, bool is_descriptor,
IsWrapperType(field)) {
GenerateWrapperFieldSetterDocComment(printer, field);
printer->Print(
"public function set^camel_name^Value($var)\n"
"public function set^camel_name^Value^field_number1^($var)\n"
"{\n"
" $wrappedVar = is_null($var) ? null : new \\^wrapper_type^(['value' => $var]);\n"
" return $this->set^camel_name^($wrappedVar);\n"
" return $this->set^camel_name^^field_number2^($wrappedVar);\n"
"}\n\n",
"camel_name", UnderscoresToCamelCase(field->name(), true),
"wrapper_type", LegacyFullClassName(field->message_type(), is_descriptor));
"wrapper_type", LegacyFullClassName(field->message_type(), is_descriptor),
"field_number1", need_other_name_for_wrapper_accessor ?
StrCat(field->number()) : "",
"field_number2", need_other_name_for_accessor ?
StrCat(field->number()) : "");
}

// Generate has method for proto2 only.
Expand Down