Add support for using models as parameter containers and add them to the parameters collection of a REST request

[ghost]

Description

This PR introduces a feature that allows us to wrap REST request parameters under any arbitrary model and add them to a RestRequest instance via an extension method.

Purpose

This pull request is a:

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

Checklist

• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

[alexeyzimarev]

Doesn't it overlap with AddObject?

[alexeyzimarev]

I like this implementation better, and I think it could be another version of AddObject, which does the same by adding properties as GetOrPost parameters, but doesn't allow to specify the type.

[ghost]

I like this implementation better, and I think it could be another version of AddObject, which does the same by adding properties as GetOrPost parameters, but doesn't allow to specify the type.

Sounds good to me. Sorry for the delayed response, my schedule has been rather tight lately. I'll be working on it this weekend.

Also worth asking: What do you think of replacing the current implementation with this one as well? We could benefit from caching the instance properties for a given type and filtering them accordingly later on. I'll make sure to provide the benchmarks if that sounds good to you. This won't break the existing API, as the method signature will be left unchanged.

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[repo-ranger]

⚠️ This issue has been marked wontfix and will be closed in 3 days

[dnfadmin]

All CLA requirements met.

[alexeyzimarev]

This time the delay is on my side, apologies.

The problem with replacing AddObject with a generic method is that you aren't always able to know the object type. I am sure that your implementation is much faster, but I don't think the existing method should be (or can be) replaced with this one without consequences. So, I'd rather have both of them.

[ghost]

This time the delay is on my side, apologies.

The problem with replacing AddObject with a generic method is that you aren't always able to know the object type. I am sure that your implementation is much faster, but I don't think the existing method should be (or can be) replaced with this one without consequences. So, I'd rather have both of them.

I see, that makes sense. Created a new PR with some changes based on this conversation. :)
#1974