Skip to content

CSHARP4040: Fix bug when using field with same element name as discriminator #1684

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

papafe
Copy link
Contributor

@papafe papafe commented May 6, 2025

No description provided.

@papafe papafe requested a review from rstam May 6, 2025 09:59
@papafe papafe requested a review from a team as a code owner May 6, 2025 09:59

private class DerivedDocument : BaseDocument {}

[Fact]
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These tests can eventually be moved to somewhere more appropriate.

@@ -1317,16 +1317,31 @@ public void UnmapProperty(string propertyName)
/// Gets the discriminator convention for the class.
/// </summary>
/// <returns>The discriminator convention for the class.</returns>
internal IDiscriminatorConvention GetDiscriminatorConvention()
internal IDiscriminatorConvention GetDiscriminatorConvention(bool checkConflicts = false)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I tried to find a place where to check that there are no conflicts with the other fields element names. I decided to do it here so it's done once and not continuously when serializing objects.
For now checkConflicts is true only when GetDiscriminatorConvention is called in BsonClassMapSerializer.SerializeDiscriminator (that is used only when serializing classes).
I'm not sure this is the optimal place for this, and if it would be worth throwing also when deserializing, for instance.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why would we ever NOT check for conflicts? Why do we even need the checkConflicts parameter?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We discussed on slack, but I've removed the parameter and moved the conflict checking inside so that it is run once and not all the time the method is called.

@papafe papafe added the bug label May 6, 2025
@@ -1317,16 +1317,31 @@ public void UnmapProperty(string propertyName)
/// Gets the discriminator convention for the class.
/// </summary>
/// <returns>The discriminator convention for the class.</returns>
internal IDiscriminatorConvention GetDiscriminatorConvention()
internal IDiscriminatorConvention GetDiscriminatorConvention(bool checkConflicts = false)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why would we ever NOT check for conflicts? Why do we even need the checkConflicts parameter?

}
if (elementName.IndexOf('\0') != -1)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Element names cannot contain nulls.", "elementName");
throw new ArgumentException("Element names cannot be null or empty.", nameof(elementName));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

throw new ArgumentException("Element names cannot contain nulls.", "elementName");

Should not have been changed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, this should have gone for the previous condition.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would you consider slightly more precise wording?

throw new ArgumentException("Discriminator element name cannot be null or empty.", nameof(elementName));

I think element name (singular) is better than plural.

Also, I prefer Discriminator element name to Element name because element names CAN be empty. It is only discriminator element names that cannot be empty (but that's an arbitrary limitation that we are imposing, in theory they could be empty because "" is an element name just as much as "_t" is).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I also think it's more appropriate, I will change the wording also on the other exception.

@papafe papafe requested a review from rstam May 9, 2025 09:40
}
if (elementName.IndexOf('\0') != -1)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Element names cannot contain nulls.", "elementName");
throw new ArgumentException("Element names cannot be null or empty.", nameof(elementName));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would you consider slightly more precise wording?

throw new ArgumentException("Discriminator element name cannot be null or empty.", nameof(elementName));

I think element name (singular) is better than plural.

Also, I prefer Discriminator element name to Element name because element names CAN be empty. It is only discriminator element names that cannot be empty (but that's an arbitrary limitation that we are imposing, in theory they could be empty because "" is an element name just as much as "_t" is).

}
if (elementName.IndexOf('\0') != -1)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Element names cannot contain nulls.", "elementName");
throw new ArgumentException("Element names cannot contain nulls.", nameof(elementName));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Consider Element name (singular)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it makes sense, the wording was to be uniform with the other exception. I've changed that too, I think the singular is more appropriate here.

@papafe papafe requested a review from rstam May 23, 2025 08:56
Copy link
Contributor

@rstam rstam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants