Prohibit accidental renames of product config json fields
Can be caused by `json:"omitempty"` instead of `json:",omitempty"`
Bug: 69076024
Test: m -j # which runs unit tests
Change-Id: I92e3193d00a740c72d36a56748e0b0a8ad1d772e
diff --git a/Android.bp b/Android.bp
index b57b0cc..e89f908 100644
--- a/Android.bp
+++ b/Android.bp
@@ -64,6 +64,7 @@
"android/env.go",
],
testSrcs: [
+ "android/config_test.go",
"android/expand_test.go",
"android/paths_test.go",
"android/prebuilt_test.go",
diff --git a/android/config_test.go b/android/config_test.go
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5eb6ed5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/android/config_test.go
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+// Copyright 2017 Google Inc. All rights reserved.
+//
+// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
+// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
+// You may obtain a copy of the License at
+//
+// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+//
+// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+// limitations under the License.
+
+package android
+
+import (
+ "fmt"
+ "reflect"
+ "strings"
+ "testing"
+)
+
+func validateConfigAnnotations(configurable jsonConfigurable) (err error) {
+ reflectType := reflect.TypeOf(configurable)
+ reflectType = reflectType.Elem()
+ for i := 0; i < reflectType.NumField(); i++ {
+ field := reflectType.Field(i)
+ jsonTag := field.Tag.Get("json")
+ // Check for mistakes in the json tag
+ if jsonTag != "" && !strings.HasPrefix(jsonTag, ",") {
+ if !strings.Contains(jsonTag, ",") {
+ // Probably an accidental rename, most likely "omitempty" instead of ",omitempty"
+ return fmt.Errorf("Field %s.%s has tag %s which specifies to change its json field name to %q.\n"+
+ "Did you mean to use an annotation of %q?\n"+
+ "(Alternatively, to change the json name of the field, rename the field in source instead.)",
+ reflectType.Name(), field.Name, field.Tag, jsonTag, ","+jsonTag)
+ } else {
+ // Although this rename was probably intentional,
+ // a json annotation is still more confusing than renaming the source variable
+ requestedName := strings.Split(jsonTag, ",")[0]
+ return fmt.Errorf("Field %s.%s has tag %s which specifies to change its json field name to %q.\n"+
+ "To change the json name of the field, rename the field in source instead.",
+ reflectType.Name(), field.Name, field.Tag, requestedName)
+
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ return nil
+}
+
+type configType struct {
+ populateMe *bool `json:"omitempty"`
+}
+
+func (c *configType) SetDefaultConfig() {
+}
+
+// tests that ValidateConfigAnnotation works
+func TestValidateConfigAnnotations(t *testing.T) {
+ config := configType{}
+ err := validateConfigAnnotations(&config)
+ expectedError := `Field configType.populateMe has tag json:"omitempty" which specifies to change its json field name to "omitempty".
+Did you mean to use an annotation of ",omitempty"?
+(Alternatively, to change the json name of the field, rename the field in source instead.)`
+ if err.Error() != expectedError {
+ t.Errorf("Incorrect error; expected:\n"+
+ "%s\n"+
+ "got:\n"+
+ "%s",
+ expectedError, err.Error())
+ }
+}
+
+// run validateConfigAnnotations against each type that might have json annotations
+func TestProductConfigAnnotations(t *testing.T) {
+ err := validateConfigAnnotations(&productVariables{})
+ if err != nil {
+ t.Errorf(err.Error())
+ }
+
+ validateConfigAnnotations(&FileConfigurableOptions{})
+ if err != nil {
+ t.Errorf(err.Error())
+ }
+}