Open giangndm opened 4 months ago
Why is the
name_fallback
getter nessesary? You could do.name().unwrap_or_default()
to get the same result, right? I think that will result in more idiomatic code.
If we use unwrap_or_default, I don't think it can work with some custom default enum like this:
enum PrivacyLevel {
PRIVACY_LEVEL_ONE = 1;
PRIVACY_LEVEL_TWO = 2;
PRIVACY_LEVEL_PRIVACY_LEVEL_THREE = 3;
PRIVACY_LEVELPRIVACY_LEVEL_FOUR = 4;
}
message Test {
optional PrivacyLevel privacy_level_1 = 1 [default = PRIVACY_LEVEL_ONE];
optional PrivacyLevel privacy_level_3 = 2 [default = PRIVACY_LEVEL_PRIVACY_LEVEL_THREE];
optional PrivacyLevel privacy_level_4 = 3 [default = PRIVACY_LEVELPRIVACY_LEVEL_FOUR];
}
Java implementation use has_
for checking and the field is set with default value in this case. How about think about has_
function?
This PR fixed mismatch between getter/setter generated for optional enum fields and enum value i32 as described in #1027