GH-3621: Replace the previous field in the queue instead of appending to the queue#3622
Open
njlaw wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
GH-3621: Replace the previous field in the queue instead of appending to the queue#3622njlaw wants to merge 1 commit into
njlaw wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…ending to the queue
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Rationale for this change
The
endFieldmethod pushes the current field onto thepreviousFieldqueue, which is used to maintain track of the previous field for each level of nesting with groups; however, the pushed fields are never removed from the queue, so it grows without bound.What changes are included in this PR?
When
endField()is called, it now replaces the previous field for the current nesting depth instead of appending a field.Are these changes tested?
I added a test that verifies the
previousFieldsize is 0 after processing a message; however, the test requires introspection, which feels wrong. I'm open to suggestions!Are there any user-facing changes?
No, there are no user-facing changes.
Closes #3621