Jeremie/protobufectomy c# #1466
Conversation
| @@ -647,7 +652,7 @@ pub fn autogen_csharp_globals(items: &[GenItem], namespace: &str) -> Vec<(String | |||
| ); | |||
| writeln!( | |||
| output, | |||
| "public ReducerEvent(ClientApi.Event dbEvent, IReducerArgs? args) : base(dbEvent) => Args = args;" | |||
| "public ReducerEvent(TransactionUpdate update, IReducerArgs? args) : base(update) => Args = args;" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either we need to add using SpacetimeDB.ClientApi; to the top of this file or you need to fully qualify this path because it causes a compilation issue:
Assets/_Project/autogen/_Globals/SpacetimeDBClient.cs(515,23): error CS0246: The type or namespace name 'TransactionUpdate' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)
| writeln!(output, "[DataContract]"); | ||
| writeln!(output, "[SpacetimeDB.Type]"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please revert this transposition
| @@ -343,11 +345,14 @@ fn autogen_csharp_product_table_common( | |||
| field_name.to_case(Case::Pascal), | |||
| default_init(ctx, &field.algebraic_type) | |||
| ); | |||
| if i + 1 != num_fields { | |||
| writeln!(output); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is causing an additional space in between each field, do we need this change? This is causing the diff for the API upgrade to be pretty insane: https://github.com/clockworklabs/BitCraftClient/pull/3586/files
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh right, I added this to make the emitted fields more readable, as the lines can get long. It's not a needed change tho, purely style. Should we keep or remove it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please remove it, if you feel strongly about the style change we can do it in a separate PR IMO - I just want the API upgrade to be as simple as possible.
Description of Changes
C# side of the rust protobufectomy. Updates the codegen to reflect matching changes to the C# client SDK.
API and ABI breaking changes
If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label.
Expected complexity level and risk
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1 to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning ways.
Testing
Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected!