Natvis file for version 3.12.0 does not contain a type definition for detail::json_default_base

[sakuntalle]

Description

With version 3.12.0 the underlying type for a nlohmann::json is nlohmann::json_abi_diag_v3_12_0::detail::json_default_base and this type does not have a Type definition in the corresponding natvis template and generated natvis file.

Reproduction steps

Add the natvis file to your project and try to introspect a nlohmann::json object

Expected vs. actual results

Introspection based on natvis file is not used.

Minimal code example

Error messages

Compiler and operating system

Windows 11, Microsoft Visual Studio Professional 2022 (64-bit) - Current Version 17.14.19

Library version

3.12.0

Validation

• The bug also occurs if the latest version from the develop branch is used.
• I can successfully compile and run the unit tests.

[sakuntalle]

I can submit a PR that adds <Type Name="{{ ns }}::detail::json_default_base"> in the nlohmann_json.natvis.j2 file

[nlohmann]

Please do! Thanks for submitting!

[gregmarr]

Why do you need a natvis entry for an empty class?

[sakuntalle]

Why do you need a natvis entry for an empty class?

Please see my detailed explanation from the PR comment on this

[nlohmann]

Looking at #4973, I get the feeling the problem is not fully understood, and the change just happen to make the problem disappear. It would be great to know for certain what needs to be done.

[github-actions]

This issue has been marked as stale because it has been open for 90 days without activity. If this issue is still relevant, please add a comment or remove the "stale" label. Otherwise, it will be closed in 10 days. Thank you for helping us prioritize our work!

[sakuntalle]

Just a note that I’ve been using the suggested fix in my commercial project from the moment I raised this PR and it’s been working flawlesly.

[nlohmann]

Just a note that I’ve been using the suggested fix in my commercial project from the moment I raised this PR and it’s been working flawlesly.

You mean #4973?

[sakuntalle]

Just a note that I’ve been using the suggested fix in my commercial project from the moment I raised this PR and it’s been working flawlesly.

You mean #4973?

Yep, that one