| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This will allow us to use it for encoding as well as parsing.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
According to the spec we always use this fixed exponent, and we have a
minimum size of 1024. This is checked adhoc in the old parser with
some slight assistance from what is now `RsaPublicParse1Helper`.
It's not clear to me that checking the exponent is actually a good
idea. I think checking the size is probably a bad idea, and if it is
a good idea then 1024 is clearly too short.
But rather than revisit these questions, let's reproduce the old
behaviour in parse2.
In parse2 these checks should be features of the type.
|
| |
|
|
| |
There are currently no options.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently this is mishandled: the current use sites (in
rs/each_variety.rs) use Option<Ignored>, which would reject repeated
items with that keyword, which is technically wrong. And encoing
will become a problem. Vec<Ignored> would be wrong too.
Instead, broaden NotPresent and give it multiplicity impls.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This seems to be where we're putting most of the parse2 impls on these
types, now. That makes more sense as parse2 becomes more of a proper
thing.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This replaces one ad-hoc impl and will avoid having to have any more.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Previously we needed this separate type because Ios8601TimeSp is
FromStr which prevented a correct ItemArgumentParseable impl.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This will allow us to (1) move field name handling out of the argument
parser method, and also (2) add columns more easily.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This will be used for some bits of netdocs where dummy values now
appear.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Use the standard multiplicity technique rather than the ad-hoc impl on
Option. This allows us to support an ad-hoc parsing function for a
field that's `Option`.
Disentangle the `label` field attribute, which did both setting the
label, and expecting a different parsing approach: replace it with
`with`.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This mistake escaped because this wasn't actually checked by the code,
but it's going to be checked in a moment.
|
|
|
This isn't used anywhere yet. We're going to demonstrate it, and test
the demo, in a moment.
|