-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
Remove RefCell from JsonRenderer.index
#82354
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
Conversation
r? @jyn514 (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
let mut index = (*self.index).clone().into_inner(); | ||
let mut index = self.index.clone(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not fully sure the behavior is the same here. It seems like before it was moving out of an Rc
, which I didn't think was possible, so I suspect I'm misunderstanding what this is doing.
I wonder if we could avoid the clone altogether and just push directly into self.index
, but I don't know this code, so that may break stuff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, looks like I did change the behavior, because every test is panicking 😆
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It doesn't move outside the Rc
, it just forces to dereference it and make it so that clone
is called on the RefCell
instead of the Rc
. This code should have kept its meaning.
What changed however is that now clone
ing a JsonRenderer
will create a totally separate index
. In particular the insert
in the item
method will have effect only on self
's index
while before it affected any JsonRenderer
with the same origin.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The only way for this to work is to remove all calls to clone()
. If you get that to work I would expect it to have the same behavior as before.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the explanation! Probably this should wait then on #82356.
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
#82356 has been merged, so this is no longer blocked! 🎉 |
Based on re-reading #82354 (comment) and thinking about this a bit more, I don't think this change is possible without significantly refactoring |
I think I'll leave this open for a bit in case anyone has ideas. |
I don't think there's much point in leaving this open if it doesn't work. Thanks for trying this, though! |
No description provided.