84c48ae751
As of this CL, Attribute no longer implements RTCStatsMemberInterface and a member no longer owns knowing its own name. The attribute knows the name because we pass it down at construction time. To achieve this, the WEBRTC_RTCSTATS_IMPL() macro is updated to take AttributeInits instead of raw member pointers, i.e. (name, ptr) pairs. By constructing RTCStatsMember<T> without a name parameter, it does the same thing as the absl::optional<T> constructor. So RTCStatsMember<T>'s days are numbered! Bug: webrtc:15164 Change-Id: I560c0134bae1c2d7218426a1576425ecc1b677a7 Reviewed-on: https://webrtc-review.googlesource.com/c/src/+/334203 Commit-Queue: Henrik Boström <hbos@webrtc.org> Reviewed-by: Evan Shrubsole <eshr@google.com> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#41540}
How to write code in the api/ directory
Mostly, just follow the regular style guide, but:
- Note that
api/code is not exempt from the “.hand.ccfiles come in pairs” rule, so if you declare something inapi/path/to/foo.h, it should be defined inapi/path/to/foo.cc. - Headers in
api/should, if possible, not#includeheaders outsideapi/. It’s not always possible to avoid this, but be aware that it adds to a small mountain of technical debt that we’re trying to shrink. .ccfiles inapi/, on the other hand, are free to#includeheaders outsideapi/.- Avoid structs in api, prefer classes.
The preferred way for api/ code to access non-api/ code is to call
it from a .cc file, so that users of our API headers won’t transitively
#include non-public headers.
For headers in api/ that need to refer to non-public types, forward
declarations are often a lesser evil than including non-public header files. The
usual rules still apply, though.
.cc files in api/ should preferably be kept reasonably small. If a
substantial implementation is needed, consider putting it with our non-public
code, and just call it from the api/ .cc file.
Avoid defining api with structs as it makes harder for the api to evolve. Your struct may gain invariant, or change how it represents data. Evolving struct from the api is particular challenging as it is designed to be used in other code bases and thus needs to be updated independetly from its usage. Class with accessors and setters makes such migration safer. See Google C++ style guide for more.
If you need to evolve existent struct in api, prefer first to convert it into a class.