Skip to content

Conversation

anton-dutov
Copy link

@Mingun
I made some draft for $cdata serialization, deserialization the same as $text field, can you review?

Copy link
Collaborator

@Mingun Mingun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would prefer to not introduce $cdata rename, because serializing text as CDATA is a rather serializer choice instead of datatype choice. I already outlined my thoughts here.

Also, you implementation just wrong, because it not escaping ]]> in the serialized string and escapes &, < and >. The essential point of any CDATA-related PR should be test of those corner cases.

@anton-dutov
Copy link
Author

I would prefer to not introduce $cdata rename, because serializing text as CDATA is a rather serializer choice instead of datatype choice. I already outlined my thoughts here.

I understand your point, but unfortunately some software, e.g. implementing IATA CUPPS understand only CDATA in some elements, there are many of them and you can't change them. I can't explicitly tell the serializer that the data should be serialized as CDATA, so I'm looking for a solution. As I understand I am not the only one with this problem.

Also, you implementation just wrong, because it not escaping ]]> in the serialized string and escapes &, < and >. The essential point of any CDATA-related PR should be test of those corner cases.

Adding tests and fixing escaping is not a big deal, it's more a question of how to idiomatically add this functionality

@Mingun
Copy link
Collaborator

Mingun commented Mar 9, 2025

Ok, if a real use case exist for that, that we can add $cdata special rename in addition to the setting to the serializer. Would you like to implement variant with setting too?

You also need to update documentation that new $cdata rename is supported.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Mar 9, 2025

⚠️ Please install the 'codecov app svg image' to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 14.40000% with 107 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 59.94%. Comparing base (a9391f3) to head (7f92441).
Report is 27 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/se/cdata.rs 5.30% 107 Missing ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #849      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   60.21%   59.94%   -0.27%     
==========================================
  Files          41       42       +1     
  Lines       16021    16142     +121     
==========================================
+ Hits         9647     9677      +30     
- Misses       6374     6465      +91     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 59.94% <14.40%> (-0.27%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@anton-dutov
Copy link
Author

I apologize for bothering you. After a long correspondence, the software manufacturers acknowledged the problem and promised to solve it within a year. Then I will roll back to a temporary solution (waiting for a miracle), and close the PR

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants