wip: Strict deserialization returns error on any unknown xml field#194
Open
jggc wants to merge 1 commit intoluminvent:mainfrom
Open
wip: Strict deserialization returns error on any unknown xml field#194jggc wants to merge 1 commit intoluminvent:mainfrom
jggc wants to merge 1 commit intoluminvent:mainfrom
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is a feature request with some sample code to support the idea.
I am creating a strict parser that will deserialize a rather large configuration file from a running environment, modify it and write it back.
I need to be 100% sure that I won't be modifying anything else and I want complete type safety so I decided to go with yaserde.
However, I tried setting
#[yaserde(deny_unknown_fields)]but it does nothing (or I don't understand what it should be doing).Question 1 : Is this an existing feature that I missed ?
Question 2 : Is this catch all case of the event name the right place to
return Err(...)?If so, I may very well try to make a cleaner implementation based on deny_unknown_fields if that sounds correct to you.