[BUG][Kotlin] Fixed primitive type check for array of array#21500
Merged
wing328 merged 1 commit intoOpenAPITools:masterfrom Jul 16, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
Hi @andreas-umbricht did you tested this locally? Thanks |
Member
|
since it's a follow pr to another pr you contributed earlier, we can definitely give it another try |
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
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
Upon PR #21315, a feature was included, so that code is generated of to check that in a list of primitive types, the items in that list are in fact a primitive. Now I discovered an edge case:
Current behavior:
A list of a list currently also generate the code, which then leads to false assertions.
Excpected behavior:
The code added in the PR is not being generated for a list of a list.
I do not really understand why a list is considered a primitive type here, but I simply had to add another if statement to check for such a case.
@dr4ke616 @karismann @Zomzog @andrewemery @4brunu @stefankoppier @e5l