I came across this code:
message MapTaskAssignment {
uint32 task = 1;
uint32 worker_id = 2;
}
message GetTaskReply {
...
repeated MapTaskAssignment map_task_assignments = 10;
}
I've seen repeated string before. But what does it mean when the repeated item is another proto object (repeated MapTaskAssignment)? How does it work and how can I access the fields inside?
Edit:
Specifically, using rust, what type does repeated MapTaskAssignment convert to? is it a Vec of struct MapTaskAssignment?
In the same manner RepeatedField is defined in google/protobuf/repeated_field.h, prost - Protocol Buffers implementation for Rust defines repeated: Vec<T>.
For your sample Protocol Buffers definition tonic-build would create
pub struct MapTaskAssignment {
#[prost(uint32, tag = "1")]
pub task: u32,
#[prost(uint32, tag = "2")]
pub worker_id: u32,
}
pub struct GetTaskReply {
#[prost(message, repeated, tag = "10")]
pub map_task_assignments: ::prost::alloc::vec::Vec<MapTaskAssignment>,
}
Related
I want to write a macro that generates varying structs from an integer argument. For example, make_struct!(3) might generate something like this:
pub struct MyStruct3 {
field_0: u32,
field_1: u32,
field_2: u32
}
What's the best way to transform that "3" literal into a number that I can use to generate code? Should I be using macro_rules! or a proc-macro?
You need a procedural attribute macro and quite a bit of pipework. An example implementation is on Github; bear in mind that it is pretty rough around the edges, but works pretty nicely to start with.
The aim is to have the following:
#[derivefields(u32, "field", 3)]
struct MyStruct {
foo: u32
}
transpile to:
struct MyStruct {
pub field_0: u32,
pub field_1: u32,
pub field_2: u32,
foo: u32
}
To do this, first, we're going to establish a couple of things. We're going to need a struct to easily store and retrieve our arguments:
struct MacroInput {
pub field_type: syn::Type,
pub field_name: String,
pub field_count: u64
}
The rest is pipework:
impl Parse for MacroInput {
fn parse(input: ParseStream) -> syn::Result<Self> {
let field_type = input.parse::<syn::Type>()?;
let _comma = input.parse::<syn::token::Comma>()?;
let field_name = input.parse::<syn::LitStr>()?;
let _comma = input.parse::<syn::token::Comma>()?;
let count = input.parse::<syn::LitInt>()?;
Ok(MacroInput {
field_type: field_type,
field_name: field_name.value(),
field_count: count.base10_parse().unwrap()
})
}
}
This defines syn::Parse on our struct and allows us to use syn::parse_macro_input!() to easily parse our arguments.
#[proc_macro_attribute]
pub fn derivefields(attr: TokenStream, item: TokenStream) -> TokenStream {
let input = syn::parse_macro_input!(attr as MacroInput);
let mut found_struct = false; // We actually need a struct
item.into_iter().map(|r| {
match &r {
&proc_macro::TokenTree::Ident(ref ident) if ident.to_string() == "struct" => { // react on keyword "struct" so we don't randomly modify non-structs
found_struct = true;
r
},
&proc_macro::TokenTree::Group(ref group) if group.delimiter() == proc_macro::Delimiter::Brace && found_struct == true => { // Opening brackets for the struct
let mut stream = proc_macro::TokenStream::new();
stream.extend((0..input.field_count).fold(vec![], |mut state:Vec<proc_macro::TokenStream>, i| {
let field_name_str = format!("{}_{}", input.field_name, i);
let field_name = Ident::new(&field_name_str, Span::call_site());
let field_type = input.field_type.clone();
state.push(quote!(pub #field_name: #field_type,
).into());
state
}).into_iter());
stream.extend(group.stream());
proc_macro::TokenTree::Group(
proc_macro::Group::new(
proc_macro::Delimiter::Brace,
stream
)
)
}
_ => r
}
}).collect()
}
The behavior of the modifier creates a new TokenStream and adds our fields first. This is extremely important; assume that the struct provided is struct Foo { bar: u8 }; appending last would cause a parse error due to a missing ,. Prepending allows us to not have to care about this, since a trailing comma in a struct is not a parse error.
Once we have this TokenStream, we successively extend() it with the generated tokens from quote::quote!(); this allows us to not have to build the token fragments ourselves. One gotcha is that the field name needs to be converted to an Ident (it gets quoted otherwise, which isn't something we want).
We then return this modified TokenStream as a TokenTree::Group to signify that this is indeed a block delimited by brackets.
In doing so, we also solved a few problems:
Since structs without named members (pub struct Foo(u32) for example) never actually have an opening bracket, this macro is a no-op for this
It will no-op any item that isn't a struct
It will also no-op structs without a member
I have a custom struct like the following:
struct MyStruct {
first_field: i32,
second_field: String,
third_field: u16,
}
Is it possible to get the number of struct fields programmatically (like, for example, via a method call field_count()):
let my_struct = MyStruct::new(10, "second_field", 4);
let field_count = my_struct.field_count(); // Expecting to get 3
For this struct:
struct MyStruct2 {
first_field: i32,
}
... the following call should return 1:
let my_struct_2 = MyStruct2::new(7);
let field_count = my_struct2.field_count(); // Expecting to get count 1
Is there any API like field_count() or is it only possible to get that via macros?
If this is achievable with macros, how should it be implemented?
Are there any possible API like field_count() or is it only possible to get that via macros?
There is no such built-in API that would allow you to get this information at runtime. Rust does not have runtime reflection (see this question for more information). But it is indeed possible via proc-macros!
Note: proc-macros are different from "macro by example" (which is declared via macro_rules!). The latter is not as powerful as proc-macros.
If this is achievable with macros, how should it be implemented?
(This is not an introduction into proc-macros; if the topic is completely new to you, first read an introduction elsewhere.)
In the proc-macro (for example a custom derive), you would somehow need to get the struct definition as TokenStream. The de-facto solution to use a TokenStream with Rust syntax is to parse it via syn:
#[proc_macro_derive(FieldCount)]
pub fn derive_field_count(input: TokenStream) -> TokenStream {
let input = parse_macro_input!(input as ItemStruct);
// ...
}
The type of input is ItemStruct. As you can see, it has the field fields of the type Fields. On that field you can call iter() to get an iterator over all fields of the struct, on which in turn you could call count():
let field_count = input.fields.iter().count();
Now you have what you want.
Maybe you want to add this field_count() method to your type. You can do that via the custom derive (by using the quote crate here):
let name = &input.ident;
let output = quote! {
impl #name {
pub fn field_count() -> usize {
#field_count
}
}
};
// Return output tokenstream
TokenStream::from(output)
Then, in your application, you can write:
#[derive(FieldCount)]
struct MyStruct {
first_field: i32,
second_field: String,
third_field: u16,
}
MyStruct::field_count(); // returns 3
It's possible when the struct itself is generated by the macros - in this case you can just count tokens passed into macros, as shown here. That's what I've come up with:
macro_rules! gen {
($name:ident {$($field:ident : $t:ty),+}) => {
struct $name { $($field: $t),+ }
impl $name {
fn field_count(&self) -> usize {
gen!(#count $($field),+)
}
}
};
(#count $t1:tt, $($t:tt),+) => { 1 + gen!(#count $($t),+) };
(#count $t:tt) => { 1 };
}
Playground (with some test cases)
The downside for this approach (one - there could be more) is that it's not trivial to add an attribute to this function - for example, to #[derive(...)] something on it. Another approach would be to write the custom derive macros, but this is something that I can't speak about for now.
Consider the following Rust snippet from The Rust Programming Language, second edition:
pub struct Guess {
value: u32,
}
impl Guess {
pub fn new(value: u32) -> Guess {
if value < 1 || value > 100 {
panic!("Guess value must be between 1 and 100, got {}.", value);
}
Guess {
value
}
}
pub fn value(&self) -> u32 {
self.value
}
}
and commentary from the corresponding tutorial, emphasis mine:
Next, we implement a method named value that borrows self, doesn’t have any
other parameters, and returns a u32. This is a kind of method sometimes
called a getter, since its purpose is to get some data from its fields and
return it. This public method is necessary because the value field of the
Guess struct is private. It’s important that the value field is private so
that code using the Guess struct is not allowed to set value directly:
callers outside the module must use the Guess::new function to create an
instance of Guess, which ensures there’s no way for a Guess to have a
value that hasn’t been checked by the conditions in the Guess::new function.
Why must callers use the new function? Couldn't they get around the requirement that Guess.value be between 1 and 100 by doing something like:
let g = Guess { value: 200 };
This applies only when the Guess struct is defined in a different module than the code using it; the struct itself is public but its value field is not, so you can't access it directly.
You can verify it with the following example (playground link):
use self::guess::Guess;
fn main() {
let guess1 = Guess::new(20); // works
let guess2 = Guess::new(200); // panic: 'Guess value must be between 1 and 100, got 200.'
let guess3 = Guess { value: 20 }; // error: field `value` of struct `guess::Guess` is private
let guess4 = Guess { value: 200 }; // error: field `value` of struct `guess::Guess` is private
}
mod guess {
pub struct Guess {
value: u32,
}
impl Guess {
pub fn new(value: u32) -> Guess {
if value < 1 || value > 100 {
panic!("Guess value must be between 1 and 100, got {}.", value);
}
Guess {
value
}
}
pub fn value(&self) -> u32 {
self.value
}
}
}
The Book explains the rationale behind keeping a struct's contents private pretty well.
I would like to use the const C inside the impl R6502 without having to specify the scope R6502::
use bit::BitIndex;
pub struct R6502 {
pub sr: u8, // status register
}
impl R6502 {
// status flag indexs
const C: usize = 0;
const Z: usize = 1;
pub fn step(&mut self) {
self.sr.set_bit(R6502::C, false); // this is what I have to do
self.sr.set_bit(C, false); // this is what I want to do
}
}
I tried use self::C and some other combinations of use to only get errors about items not found.
useing of associated constants is not implemented in Rust 1.20. I haven't found an issue for that, so you can create your own issue in Rust GitHub repository.
In the meantime you can use type alias to reduce character count.
type P = R6502;
self.sr.set_bit(P::C, false);
I'm coming from mostly OOP languages, so getting this concept to work in Rust kinda seems hard. I want to implement a basic counter that keeps count of how many "instances" I've made of that type, and keep them in a vector for later use.
I've tried many different things, first was making a static vector variable, but that cant be done due to it not allowing static stuff that have destructors.
This was my first try:
struct Entity {
name: String,
}
struct EntityCounter {
count: i64,
}
impl Entity {
pub fn init() {
let counter = EntityCounter { count: 0 };
}
pub fn new(name: String) {
println!("Entity named {} was made.", name);
counter += 1; // counter variable unaccessable (is there a way to make it global to the struct (?..idek))
}
}
fn main() {
Entity::init();
Entity::new("Hello".to_string());
}
Second:
struct Entity {
name: String,
counter: i32,
}
impl Entity {
pub fn new(self) {
println!("Entity named {} was made.", self.name);
self.counter = self.counter + 1;
}
}
fn main() {
Entity::new(Entity { name: "Test".to_string() });
}
None of those work, I was just trying out some concepts on how I could be able to implement such a feature.
Your problems appear to be somewhat more fundamental than what you describe. You're kind of throwing code at the wall to see what sticks, and that's simply not going to get you anywhere. I'd recommend reading the Rust Book completely before continuing. If you don't understand something in it, ask about it. As it stands, you're demonstrating you don't understand variable scoping, return types, how instance construction works, how statics work, and how parameters are passed. That's a really shaky base to try and build any understanding on.
In this particular case, you're asking for something that's deliberately not straightforward. You say you want a counter and a vector of instances. The counter is simple enough, but a vector of instances? Rust doesn't allow easy sharing like other languages, so how you go about doing that depends heavily on what it is you're actually intending to use this for.
What follows is a very rough guess at something that's maybe vaguely similar to what you want.
/*!
Because we need the `lazy_static` crate, you need to add the following to your
`Cargo.toml` file:
```cargo
[dependencies]
lazy_static = "0.2.1"
```
*/
#[macro_use] extern crate lazy_static;
mod entity {
use std::sync::{Arc, Weak, Mutex};
use std::sync::atomic;
pub struct Entity {
pub name: String,
}
impl Entity {
pub fn new(name: String) -> Arc<Self> {
println!("Entity named {} was made.", name);
let ent = Arc::new(Entity {
name: name,
});
bump_counter();
remember_instance(ent.clone());
ent
}
}
/*
The counter is simple enough, though I'm not clear on *why* you even want
it in the first place. You don't appear to be using it for anything...
*/
static COUNTER: atomic::AtomicUsize = atomic::ATOMIC_USIZE_INIT;
fn bump_counter() {
// Add one using the most conservative ordering.
COUNTER.fetch_add(1, atomic::Ordering::SeqCst);
}
pub fn get_counter() -> usize {
COUNTER.load(atomic::Ordering::SeqCst)
}
/*
There are *multiple* ways of doing this part, and you simply haven't given
enough information on what it is you're trying to do. This is, at best,
a *very* rough guess.
`Mutex` lets us safely mutate the vector from any thread, and `Weak`
prevents `INSTANCES` from keeping every instance alive *forever*. I mean,
maybe you *want* that, but you didn't specify.
Note that I haven't written a "cleanup" function here to remove dead weak
references.
*/
lazy_static! {
static ref INSTANCES: Mutex<Vec<Weak<Entity>>> = Mutex::new(vec![]);
}
fn remember_instance(entity: Arc<Entity>) {
// Downgrade to a weak reference. Type constraint is just for clarity.
let entity: Weak<Entity> = Arc::downgrade(&entity);
INSTANCES
// Lock mutex
.lock().expect("INSTANCES mutex was poisoned")
// Push entity
.push(entity);
}
pub fn get_instances() -> Vec<Arc<Entity>> {
/*
This is about as inefficient as I could write this, but again, without
knowing your access patterns, I can't really do any better.
*/
INSTANCES
// Lock mutex
.lock().expect("INSTANCES mutex was poisoned")
// Get a borrowing iterator from the Vec.
.iter()
/*
Convert each `&Weak<Entity>` into a fresh `Arc<Entity>`. If we
couldn't (because the weak ref is dead), just drop that element.
*/
.filter_map(|weak_entity| weak_entity.upgrade())
// Collect into a new `Vec`.
.collect()
}
}
fn main() {
use entity::Entity;
let e0 = Entity::new("Entity 0".to_string());
println!("e0: {}", e0.name);
{
let e1 = Entity::new("Entity 1".to_string());
println!("e1: {}", e1.name);
/*
`e1` is dropped here, which should cause the underlying `Entity` to
stop existing, since there are no other "strong" references to it.
*/
}
let e2 = Entity::new("Entity 2".to_string());
println!("e2: {}", e2.name);
println!("Counter: {}", entity::get_counter());
println!("Instances:");
for ent in entity::get_instances() {
println!("- {}", ent.name);
}
}