Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SignaturePruning: Properly handle public types #6630
SignaturePruning: Properly handle public types #6630
Changes from 10 commits
54d8e73
6487897
9da9900
cba4a85
1c72e1e
fceb73a
5f82586
a4904ed
e3fb49c
56900e6
2213028
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks like the type name is repeated in the output, which we shouldn't allow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, that's a quirk we have atm. It's actually useful in cases where the old and new types remain in use (like here), but we should probably ensure a new unique name. I can look into that separately.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would expect us to have problems with text round trip fuzzing before this is fixed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't see issues in fuzzing so far, but this is a pre-existing issue, so that isn't surprising. It must take specific fuzzer luck to get it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Experimenting with a patch that deduplicates the names, the problem is that it will generate a large diff on existing tests (before this PR; unrelated) regardless of whether we deduplicate the old or the new name. We seem to just have enough cases that both remain in use. The diff one way is 66 K and the other is 276 K, so at least one is clearly less annoying, but it will still be a quite large change unfortunately.