🐛 fix issue where numbering is messed up #57
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Signed-off-by: Prashant Gupta <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Prashant Gupta <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Prashant Gupta <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Prashant Gupta <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Prashant Gupta <[email protected]>
prashantgupta24
commented
Aug 18, 2023
| class Foo: | ||
| bar: Annotated[bool, FieldNumber(1)] | ||
| foo: Union[bool, str] | ||
| baz: Annotated[bool, FieldNumber(2)] |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This fails with
[Couldn't build proto file into descriptor pool: duplicate field number (2)]
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Try to fix #58
Getting the field number based on the len(field_descriptors) heavily relies on the fact that the fields are ordered.
In case he fields are annotated like this:
then with the current logic, while determining the number for the 2 oneofs within b, one will get the number 2
len(field_descriptors) + oneof_field_idxand the other will get 3len(field_descriptors) + oneof_field_idx(wherelen(field_descriptors)is an incorrect way of determining the number of fields that have already been handled).Ideally, this can be just the
field_number + oneof_field_idx, where we've already determined thefield_numberearlier?