Disallowed to serialize unknown enum members - #1334
Open
timocov wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Similar to unions - we should be able to deserialize unknown values, but serializing should not be allowed
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What behavior changes?
Describe the observable difference in behavior before and after this change.
Similar to unions - we should be able to deserialize unknown values, but serializing doesn't feel correct?
Why is this change needed?
Explain the motivation: bug, feature request, refactor, performance, etc.
It does look like a bug - parsing unknown values makes sense for backward compatibility, but serialising means that unknown value is passed to the object. Unions handle it already and throw an exception when you serialize unknown variant.
How was this validated?
List tests added, benchmarks run, or manual verification performed.
Added tests.
What should reviewers focus on?
Point reviewers to the files or sections that contain the interesting logic.
Additional Links
Related issues, design docs, or prior art.
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.