Auto-generate C# ModuleDef bindings from Rust #1680
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 of Changes
This PR marks entire
ModuleDef
type tree (with all its dependencies) withderive(SpacetimeType)
, so that it can be used in any SATS context.Then, it's used to generate all the C# raw module types instead of us maintaining our own copies, so this PR is a net negative in terms of lines of code we need to maintain, despite the diff stats saying otherwise due to the
Autogen
folder.This is the first part of migration to V9 (#1670) and makes the actual migration much easier, since we don't need to update types by hand or worry about mismatches between C# and Rust definitions. We should be able to reuse the same principle and derives to autogenerate type bindings to more languages in the future as well.
In the process I had to make a few semi-related fixes to the
generate/csharp.rs
, I'm happy to extract them out into their own PR if that's easier to review but it will be a dependency of this one.API and ABI breaking changes
If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label.
Expected complexity level and risk
1
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1 to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning ways.
Testing
Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected!