Hi all,
On 17/03/23 9:25 pm, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> writes:
Currently it is not possible for a union type to contain a
further union as one (or more) of its branches. This relaxes
that restriction and adds the calls needed to validate field
name uniqueness as unions are flattened.
I apologize for the long delay. Sick child, sick me, much snot, little
sleep.
PATCH 1 is wrong, but I was able to figure out what's going on there,
and suggested a patch that hopefully works.
PATCH 2 is okay. I suggested a few tweaks. I'd put it first, but
that's up to you.
PATCH 3 looks good.
Looking forward to v3.
Thankyou Markus for your suggestions and I hope everyone is in good
health now. This is just a friendly reminder if Daniel is ready with v3
patches for the same :)
Regards,
Het Gala
