[Compiler-v2] Fix check_variant
#14952
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
⏱️ 3h 57m total CI duration on this PR
🚨 1 job on the last run was significantly faster/slower than expected
|
|
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. Join @rahxephon89 and the rest of your teammates on |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #14952 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 71.7% 60.1% -11.7%
===========================================
Files 2412 856 -1556
Lines 490526 211110 -279416
===========================================
- Hits 351949 126962 -224987
+ Misses 138577 84148 -54429 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
rahxephon89
force-pushed
the
teng/fix-14950
branch
2 times, most recently
from
bdae453 to
1dda9aa
Compare
rahxephon89
force-pushed
the
teng/fix-14950
branch
from
1dda9aa to
637157a
Compare
rahxephon89
changed the title
check_variant
rahxephon89
changed the title
check_variantcheck_variant
brmataptos
reviewed
Oct 15, 2024
| } else { | ||
| true | ||
| (true, maccess.clone()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Under what condition would this case happen? Do we have tests that cover this case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It covers all other cases where maccess cannot be interpreted as a variant so I don't think we need new test cases here.
wrwg
approved these changes
Oct 15, 2024
brmataptos
approved these changes
Oct 16, 2024
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
✅ Forge suite
|
✅ Forge suite
|
✅ Forge suite
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Description
In the expansion phase, module access with the form
A::Bis translated into access of the variantBof enumAasModuleAccess(M1, M2, Some(B))whenAhas an aliasM1::M2whereM1is the name of the module whereAis defined.However, when
Ais both the name of a struct/enum type and the name of a module (which meansM1==A) andBis a constant, a struct/enum type, thenA::Bneeds to be interpreted asModuleAccess(M1, B, None). This PR refactors the implementation ofcheck_variant(maccess: ModuleAccess)-> boolin themodule_buildersuch that, instead of directly returning false whenmaccesstakes the formModuleAccess(M1, M2, Some(B)), it will returnModuleAccess(M1, B, None)ifM1::Bis a constant, schema or a struct.Close #14950
How Has This Been Tested?
Key Areas to Review
Corner cases such as when a type has an alias with the same name as the module in which it defines.
Type of Change
Which Components or Systems Does This Change Impact?
Checklist