Conversation
| fn iter_field_validation_stmts(&self) -> impl Iterator<Item = TokenStream> + '_ { | ||
| self.fields.iter().map(Field::field_parse_validation_stmts) | ||
| let table_name = self.raw_name().to_string(); | ||
| let is_index = table_name == "Index1" || table_name == "Index2"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a funny little case hm? In general we don't like to have this kind of code be actually defined in codegen. Currently we have special labels for the different special patterns for computing a count (such as the add_multiply, used elsewhere in Index1 and Index2 and so following that pattern we would have some annotation like, #[count(cff_index_data($offsets)], and maybe we would also introduce a type for the offsets themselves that would abstract the variable length so we could use a ComputedArray, which would simplify getting the last element... let me try putting that patch together as a first step.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thinking about this more, is this patch motivated by a specific concern? it is true that the raw data array here will potentially include extra bytes belonging to another table, but given that we know the start/end offsets of the actual objects, is there any risk of us misinterpreting the data?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well one issue that current code is incorrect is that if count=0, we shouldn't expect offSize at all.
As for consuming the rest of the bytes, I noticed it, because I'm working on VARC table rendering, which uses Index2 in a couple of different ways. So I wasn't sure if the current code will work for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could just mark the count field as a version and then set the others to min version of 1. Hacky but should work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we have a general concept of a field being conditional on something, so that's fine: the annoying bit is just that it means off_size would become Option<u8>.
3 participants
I don't know if hacking codegen like this is kosher, but I think we need some code to this effect. CFF INDEXes are self-contained structs and know their own length. Please advise.