[r488] Exception deserializing with DynamicType. Invalid field in source data: 0

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Please include an e-mail address if this might need a dialogue!
==============

What steps will reproduce the problem?
    public class Program
    {
        public static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            MyArgs test = new MyArgs
            {
                Value = 12,
            };

            byte[] buffer = new byte[256];
            using (MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream(buffer))
            {
                Serializer.Serialize(ms, test);
            }

            using (MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream(buffer))
            {
                Serializer.Deserialize<MyArgs>(ms);
            }
        }
    }

    [ProtoContract]
    public class MyArgs
    {
        [ProtoMember(1, DynamicType = true)]
        public object Value;
    } 

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Unhandled Exception: ProtoBuf.ProtoException: Invalid field in source data: 0
   at ProtoBuf.ProtoReader.ReadFieldHeader() in C:\temp\protosource\trunk\protobuf-net\ProtoReader.cs:line 623
   at proto_2(Object , ProtoReader )
   at ProtoBuf.Serializers.CompiledSerializer.ProtoBuf.Serializers.IProtoSerializer.Read(Object value, ProtoReader sourc
e) in 
C:\temp\protosource\trunk\protobuf-net\Serializers\CompiledSerializer.cs:line 49
   at ProtoBuf.Meta.RuntimeTypeModel.Deserialize(Int32 key, Object value, ProtoReader source) in C:\temp\protosource\tru
nk\protobuf-net\Meta\RuntimeTypeModel.cs:line 419
   at ProtoBuf.Meta.TypeModel.DeserializeCore(ProtoReader reader, Type type, Object value, Boolean noAutoCreate) in C:\t
emp\protosource\trunk\protobuf-net\Meta\TypeModel.cs:line 591
   at ProtoBuf.Meta.TypeModel.Deserialize(Stream source, Object value, Type type, SerializationContext context) in C:\te
mp\protosource\trunk\protobuf-net\Meta\TypeModel.cs:line 517
   at ProtoBuf.Serializer.Deserialize[T](Stream source) in C:\temp\protosource\trunk\protobuf-net\Serializer.cs:line 69

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Windows 7 protobuf-net.
This repro fails with the official v2 release due to another bug. That was 
fixed in r488. But r486 introduced this bug.

Please provide any additional information below.
jay.thaler@gmail.com

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jay.tha...@gmail.com on 29 Mar 2012 at 4:03

[GoogleCodeExporter]

At the current time, this functionality is intended for use with dynamic 
*contract* types; I have added specific messages to clarify the problem (so it 
isn't a mystery), however, adding full support for all types (including inbuilt 
types) is a bit more involved. Can probably do it, but not today (and am about 
to disappear for a few days).

Original comment by marc.gravell on 30 Mar 2012 at 5:55

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'm seeing the same issue here with r580 with non-contract types. Given 
something like:

    class Program {
        static void Main(string[] args) {
            cls val = new cls();
            val.something = 123.45;
            Serializer.DeepClone(val);
        }
    }
    [ProtoContract]
    public class cls {
        [ProtoMember(1, DynamicType = true)]
        public object something; // { get; set; }

The DeepClone call complains: "Dynamic type is not a contract-type: Double" 
(same with other non-contract types, eg int).

Original comment by j...@tabascoterrier.net on 22 Aug 2012 at 1:54

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yes, this regression is *basically* why I haven't made a 58* build "listed" on 
NuGet or "featured" on google-code. This is on my list to investigate ASAP.

Original comment by marc.gravell on 22 Aug 2012 at 2:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'm having the same problem with r602.

My test

[TestMethod]
public void Execute()
{
    var m = RuntimeTypeModel.Default;
    m.DynamicTypeFormatting += OnDynamicTypeFormatting; 
    var fieldDefinition = new IntegerFieldDefinition();
    fieldDefinition.DefaultValue = 60;
    fieldDefinition.MinValue = 10;
    fieldDefinition.MaxValue = 999;
    var cloneTest = CloneTest(fieldDefinition);

    Assert.AreEqual(fieldDefinition.DefaultValue, cloneTest.DefaultValue);
    Assert.AreEqual(fieldDefinition.MinValue, cloneTest.MinValue);
    Assert.AreEqual(fieldDefinition.MaxValue, cloneTest.MaxValue);
}

public void OnDynamicTypeFormatting(object sender, TypeFormatEventArgs args)
{
    if (args.Type == typeof(Int32))
    {
        args.FormattedName = "System.Int32";
    }
    else if (args.FormattedName == "System.Int32")
    {
        args.Type = typeof(System.Int32);
    }
}

The event OnDynamicTypeFormatting is not called

The DefaultValue property of class IntegerFieldDefinition

[ProtoMember(7, DynamicType = true)]
public object DefaultValue {
    get { return _defaultValue; }
    set { _defaultValue = value; }
}

Original comment by h.rickma...@gmail.com on 10 Dec 2012 at 1:43

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Having this issue in 2.0.0.668
 [ProtoContract]
        [ProtoInclude(100, typeof(string))]
        [ProtoInclude(101, typeof(int))]
        internal class ZZZZ
        {
            [ProtoMember(1, DynamicType = true)] 
            private object _value = 56;
            [ProtoMember(2, DynamicType = true)]
            private object _value2 = "RRRRR";
        }

        private void TestProtobuf()
        {
            var zzz = new ZZZZ();

            using (var memoryStream = new MemoryStream())
            {
                Serializer.Serialize(memoryStream, zzz);

            }
        }

Original comment by evgen...@gmail.com on 27 Nov 2013 at 8:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I want to know if support for inbuilt types has been added now ?

as per the comment on Mar 29, 2012 " adding full support for all types 
(including inbuilt types) is a bit more involved.", we stongly need this 
feature as we are dealing with random object which could be anything at runtime 
based on the user input, so to use protobuff uniformly we need support for 
built in types as it is only failing for all DateTime fields in our project. I 
am using 2.0.0.668 which was released in Sep 2013, I was wondering if any other 
update available after that ?

Original comment by sandeepc...@gmail.com on 27 May 2015 at 10:53