Open
Conversation
The rename attribute was already present, just had to update the nested_path invocation in the quote! macro in the emit.rs. This ensures that the alias will be used instead of the field name or tuple field index when an alias is present.
|
Hey, how is it going? Why this feature is no merged? |
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
A rename attribute was already present and was being parsed. The only missing link was substituting the field key in the case of structs and the field index in the case of tuples with the alias provided by the rename attribute.
Added a test that verifies the renaming works.
Also added a new section to the README that showcases how to use the rename feature.
Wanted to refactor the rename attribute to work as serde (i.e. #[garde(rename = "name")] ) instead of #[garde(rename("name"))], but did not have the time or expertise to get into it that deep.
Couldn't have done it without the guidance in #127, thank you!