Partial eq variant no validation#7957
Conversation
| self.is_empty() == other.is_empty() && self.first_value_byte == other.first_value_byte; | ||
|
|
||
| let other_field_names: HashSet<&'m str> = HashSet::from_iter(other.iter()); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any chance that other_field_names contains items not in self.iter()
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn metadata_is_equal() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need to add some negative tests
|
Thank you for this PR @abacef -- I am sorry I did not see it earlier. I think this is somewhat duplicated by this PR from @friendlymatthew |
|
If you think that PR is more comprehensive or at a more refined stage, go ahead with that instead |
I am not quite sure -- this PR has accumulated a few conflicts. If you think it has additional value, feel free to resolve the conflicts and ping me for a review Thanks again |
|
Converting to draft to make it clear this one isn't waiting on feedback Please feel free to mark it ready for review when it is ready for another look |
|
@alamb the issue that this closes is completed and mostly changes the functions that I wrote. Is there any more equality code that needs to be written? |
|
I don't think so -- let's just close this PR for now |
3 participants
Which issue does this PR close?
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax.
validatedandis_fully_validatedflags doesn't need to be part of PartialEq #7952.Rationale for this change
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
What changes are included in this PR?
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR.
Are these changes tested?
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)?
Added tests for metadata, list, and object
Are there any user-facing changes?
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR.
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please call them out.
It depends on if this goes in the same release as the other partial equal changes to variant