Skip to content
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

NullableAttribute constructor parameter should be stored in a field #30143

Closed
cston opened this issue Sep 26, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

NullableAttribute constructor parameter should be stored in a field #30143

cston opened this issue Sep 26, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@cston
Copy link
Member

cston commented Sep 26, 2018

No description provided.

@jcouv jcouv added this to the 16.0 milestone Sep 26, 2018
@jaredpar jaredpar added the Bug label Sep 27, 2018
@jcouv jcouv changed the title NonNullTypesAttribute constructor parameter should be stored in a field NullableAttribute constructor parameter should be stored in a field Nov 16, 2018
@jcouv
Copy link
Member

jcouv commented Nov 16, 2018

Re-purposed this issue for NullableAttribute instead of NonNullTypesAttribute (which is being removed)

@roji
Copy link
Member

roji commented Feb 5, 2019

And although this seems pretty obvious, the value(s) should be exposed via a public property :)

My scenario is modifying Entity Framework Core to detect nullable vs. non-nullable properties and set up the database model accordingly (so that non-nullable properties cause non-nullable database columns to be created). So the nullability information recorded in the attribute must be accessible to us via reflection.

Would it be possible to prioritize this somewhat (especially as it seems simple)? We'd like to make sure this works early, allow users to test etc.

roji added a commit to roji/efcore that referenced this issue Feb 5, 2019
roji added a commit to roji/efcore that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants