[zerocopy-derive] Fix panic with raw identifiers

[joshlf]

Release 0.8.33.

Applies the same approach as in #2788, but to new lines of code (that
should have used this technique to begin with). Introduces a macro that
makes this pattern less verbose, and also hopefully encourages future
uses to use the correct pattern.

---

• 👉 [zerocopy-derive] Fix panic with raw identifiers #2871

Latest Update: v4 — Compare vs v3

📚 Full Patch History

Links show the diff between the row version and the column version.

Version	v3	v2	v1	Base
v4	vs v3	vs v2	vs v1	vs Base
v3		vs v2	vs v1	vs Base
v2			vs v1	vs Base
v1				vs Base

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @joshlf, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a critical issue in the zerocopy-derive crate where the procedural macro would panic when encountering raw identifiers in struct fields. The changes introduce a more robust and consistent method for converting identifiers to strings, leveraging an existing helper function. This ensures that the derive macros can correctly process all valid Rust identifiers, including raw ones, thereby improving the stability and reliability of the crate. A new test case has been included to verify the fix.

Highlights

• Panic Fix: Resolved a panic that occurred in the zerocopy-derive crate when processing raw identifiers (e.g., r#type).
• Identifier Handling Consistency: Refactored the identifier processing logic within the derive_has_field_struct_union function to consistently use the to_ident_str helper, ensuring robust handling of all identifier types.
• New Test Case: Added a new test struct RawType to struct_try_from_bytes.rs to specifically validate that TryFromBytes derivation works correctly with fields named using raw identifiers.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly fixes a panic that occurs when deriving traits for structs that use raw identifiers for field names. The fix involves correctly handling the r# prefix on raw identifiers, and a new test case is also added to verify this, which is a great addition. I've left one comment with a suggestion to deduplicate some of the new logic to improve maintainability.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.02%. Comparing base (8cd798a) to head (db82cb5).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2871   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.02%   92.02%           
=======================================
  Files          20       20           
  Lines        5870     5870           
=======================================
  Hits         5402     5402           
  Misses        468      468           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[joshlf]

/gemini review

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request effectively resolves a panic in zerocopy-derive when encountering raw identifiers. The core of the fix is the introduction of a new ident! macro that correctly formats identifiers by stripping the r# prefix. The changes then consistently apply this macro across the crate, which not only fixes the bug but also improves code clarity and reduces repetition. The addition of a test case for a struct with a raw identifier field ensures the fix is properly verified. The version bumps are appropriate for this patch release. Overall, the changes are excellent and improve the robustness of the crate.