parents are include in query params when parent is an object.

[MarcusDunn]

Subsystem
Resources

Failing Test

    @Resource("v1")
    private data object V1 {
        @Resource("api")
        data class Api(val parent: V1)
    }

    @Test
    fun testQueryParamsDoNotContainsObjectParent() {
        assertEquals(resourcesFormat.encodeToQueryParameters(serializer = serializer<V1.Api>()), emptySet())
    }

Expected :[]
Actual   :[Parameter(name=parent, isOptional=false)]

This is a bug, the parent is part of the path. not the query.

This PR fixes it.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This update modifies resource serialization by changing the collectAllParameters function to exclude object descriptors (i.e., those with StructureKind.OBJECT) while only including class descriptors. Additionally, a new resource structure is introduced in the tests with a private data object (V1) and a nested data class (Api), along with a corresponding test case that verifies parent resource objects are excluded from query parameter serialization. No modifications were made to any exported or public API declarations.

Changes

File(s)	Change Summary
ktor-shared/.../serialization/ResourcesFormat.kt	Updated the conditional logic in collectAllParameters to exclude StructureKind.OBJECT when collecting parameters.
ktor-shared/.../ParametersSerializationTest.kt	Added a new private data object V1, a nested data class Api, and a test method testQueryParamsDoNotContainsObjectParent() to verify that parent objects are excluded from query parameters.

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 53afbff and 1c48ec1.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• ktor-shared/ktor-resources/common/src/io/ktor/resources/serialization/ResourcesFormat.kt (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• ktor-shared/ktor-resources/common/src/io/ktor/resources/serialization/ResourcesFormat.kt

---

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai plan to trigger planning for file edits and PR creation.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[bjhham]

It doesn't really make sense to use objects as parameters here since they're statically scoped. It would be better to rewrite your class here as data object Api { val parent get() = V1 }.

That being said, the added safety here is not unwelcome. Could you review the one comment and also run ./gradlew formatKotlin to pass the lint check?

[MarcusDunn]

data object Api { val parent get() = V1 }

This is much better. Never occurred to me.

Could you review the one comment and also run ./gradlew formatKotlin to pass the lint check?

Seems to be running successfully without changes locally? I'm not able to see any CI runs to check why they are failing (I think the code review change may have inadvertently fixed)

Also, I ran into this when using some changes similar to #4747 on my own project, would I be able to get a review on that? I would like to know if something like that would be considered to be merged, or if that's out of KTOR's scope and I should be working on a solution application-side...

[bjhham]

Looks good. Sorry about the CI, we've been having some tests go flaky recently. I can re-run them.