Docs

Author: smaye81

conformance/expected-failures.yaml

@@ -1,17 +0,0 @@
-custom_rules:
-  - field_expression/map/enum/invalid
-  - field_expression/map/enum/valid
-  - field_expression/map/message/invalid
-  - field_expression/map/message/valid
-  - field_expression/map/bool/valid
-  - field_expression/map/bool/invalid
-  - field_expression/map/string/valid
-  - field_expression/map/string/invalid
-  - field_expression/map/int32/valid
-  - field_expression/map/int32/invalid
-  - field_expression/map/uint32/valid
-  - field_expression/map/uint32/invalid
-  - field_expression/map/int64/valid
-  - field_expression/map/int64/invalid
-  - field_expression/map/uint64/valid
-  - field_expression/map/uint64/invalid

src/main/java/build/buf/protovalidate/ObjectValue.java

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ public Message messageValue() {
   public <T> T value(Class<T> clazz) {
     Descriptors.FieldDescriptor.Type type = fieldDescriptor.getType();
     if (fieldDescriptor.isMapField()) {
-      return clazz.cast(getMapBinding());
+      return clazz.cast(mapValueAsObject());
     }
     if (!fieldDescriptor.isRepeated()
         && (type == Descriptors.FieldDescriptor.Type.UINT32
@@ -96,10 +96,18 @@ public List<Value> repeatedValue() {
     return out;
   }
 
-  // TODO - This is essentially the same functionality as `mapValue` except that it 
-  // returns a Map of Objects rather than a Map of protovalidate-java Value. 
-  // Trying to bind a Map of Values to a CEL variable (i.e. `this`) does not work
-  // because CEL-Java doesn't know how to interpret that proprietary Value object. 
+  // TODO - This should be refactored at some point.
+  //
+  // This is essentially the same functionality as `mapValue` except that it
+  // returns a Map of Objects rather than a Map of protovalidate-java Values.
+  // It is used for binding to a CEL variable (i.e. `this`).
+  // Trying to bind a Map of Values to a CEL variable does not work because
+  // CEL-Java doesn't know how to interpret that proprietary Value object.
+  //
+  // Ideally, we should be using CEL-Java's org.projectnessie.cel.common.types.ref.Val
+  // type instead of our own custom Value abstraction. However, since we are evaluating
+  // Java CEL implementations, we should probably wait until that decision is made before
+  // making such a large refactor. This should suffice as a stopgap until then.
   private Map<Object, Object> mapValueAsObject() {
     List<AbstractMessage> input =
         value instanceof List