Skip to content

Conversation

AhmedSoliman
Copy link
Contributor

@AhmedSoliman AhmedSoliman commented May 1, 2025

This is necessary to allow Box<dyn WireEncode> to be used in the next PR. This also aligns with how most serialization libraries work, there is no need to send the owned value. I've temporarily disabled bilrost's IntoDto until we can get it to work with this design. Additionally. I didn't change the API of the send() API in network code to avoid making this as a sweeping change. If the need for passing the message by reference on that layer rises, we can change it.

// intentionally empty

Stack created with Sapling. Best reviewed with ReviewStack.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 1, 2025

Test Results

  7 files  ±0    7 suites  ±0   5m 0s ⏱️ +16s
 54 tests ±0   53 ✅ ±0  1 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
223 runs  ±0  220 ✅ ±0  3 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 0ece5c3. ± Comparison against base commit 26a0135.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Copy link
Contributor

@muhamadazmy muhamadazmy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @AhmedSoliman for this PR. The changes looks good to me. It make sense to accept a ref.

The IntoDto trait is less important and possibly can be completely dropped after introducing the BilrostAs macro.

Although one small thing I am worried about is that the BilrostAs macro can only work on the inner fields but not root bilrost::Message structs. That's where the IntoDto trait can become handy.

This is necessary to allow `Box<dyn WireEncode>` to be used in the next PR. This also aligns with how most serialization libraries work, there is no need to send the owned value. I've temporarily disabled bilrost's IntoDto until we can get it to work with this design. Additionally. I didn't change the API of the send() API in network code to avoid making this as a sweeping change. If the need for passing the message by reference on that layer rises, we can change it.

```
// intentionally empty
```
@AhmedSoliman AhmedSoliman merged commit 0ece5c3 into main May 2, 2025
59 of 61 checks passed
@AhmedSoliman AhmedSoliman deleted the pr3214 branch May 2, 2025 08:21
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 2, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants