Annotations for enum members#812
Conversation
jsuereth
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall, looks great. Just nits.
| note: None, | ||
| stability: None, | ||
| deprecated: None, | ||
| annotations: None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jerbly / @lquerel After seeing this type of change bloat PRs a thousand times,
How do we feel about using the DEFAULT syntax so this isn't so tedious when safely adding new fields?
e.g.:
EnumEntriesSpec {
id: "non-default".to_owned(),
...Default::default(),
}Instead of these more verbose updates where it's harder to see the content of what has changed...
b6fdb6a to
026a28f
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #812 +/- ##
=====================================
Coverage 76.9% 76.9%
=====================================
Files 69 69
Lines 5664 5664
=====================================
Hits 4359 4359
Misses 1305 1305 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
@lmolkova Ideally, an entry should have been added to the CHANGELOG.md to describe the feature in this PR. But I forgot to check that before the merge of this PR. I’ll add the entry in the PR I’ll create for the release. |
We need to be able to exclude specific enum members from code generation to prevent collisions, see open-telemetry/semantic-conventions#2455