[C++] Fix field precedence check issue #1031.#1033
Merged
vyazelenko merged 1 commit intomasterfrom Dec 11, 2024
Merged
Conversation
There were a couple of problems here: 1. "wrapping constructors" did not initialize the codec state (for precedence checks) correctly, and 2. the methods returning a JSON encoded string would attempt to transition twice. These problems are now resolved. I have also made a technically breaking change. I have removed an unnecessary constructor that took in the codec state. I think it is highly unlikely that anyone was using this constructor; therefore, it should be okay to make the change.
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
There were a couple of problems here:
These problems are now resolved.
I have also made a technically breaking change. I have removed an unnecessary constructor that took in the codec state. I think it is highly unlikely that anyone was using this constructor; therefore, it should be okay to make the change.