This repository was archived by the owner on Dec 24, 2022. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 623
Issue using lenient scope with DataMember Name and SnakeCase. #519
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ok should be resolved with this commit. Change is available from v5.4.1 that's now on MyGet.
Thanks for the failing test Darren 👍
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hey @mythz ,
Spotted an issue with
TypeAccessorUtils.Get(i think, see failing test) where if a JsConfig scope is set to lenient a datamember name of snake case will be missed. Previously this would work on 5.0.2 and I think 5.1 .I tried a fix but this looks like a pretty hot path that was refactored for performance gains, I can't see another way without testing both original and lenient property names which would require an additional string allocation and potential double up on the binary search.
Thoughts?