Fix decode schema so it can handle arbitrary depth #43
Conversation
This file contains 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
As we walk the schemaElements we move the schema pointer to the `fields` property whenever we have num_children > 0 and move the pointer up to the parent when we have defined all the children. Doing this recursively should support any depth.
ZJONSSON
force-pushed
the
fix-deep-schema
branch
from
aaf14e1 to
d5716cd
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
closes #42
As we walk the schemaElements we move the schema pointer to the
fieldsproperty whenever we havenum_children > 0and move the pointer up to the parent when we have defined all the children. Doing this recursively should support any depth.I apply a trick here to define variables in the field list that are not
enumerable- they will not be visible (i.e. will not show up inObject.keys) but still accessible directly. We could clean them up afterwards, but I did not see any problem leaving them in.Added test that fails on master but works on this PR