-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 86
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
Enable type parameter traversal in exact type patterns #221
Comments
kriegaex
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 30, 2023
Closes #221 Signed-off-by: Alexander Kriegisch <[email protected]>
I did not look into this for a while, being busy with non-AspectJ stuff. Reminder to myself or anyone else implementing this: Writing additional information into a
|
kriegaex
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 11, 2024
Closes #221 Signed-off-by: Alexander Kriegisch <[email protected]>
kriegaex
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 11, 2024
Due to the latest improvements, an error which was previously not thrown unexpectedly according to a source code comment in test aspect ParameterizedTypesInAnnotationPatterns.aj is now thrown for this kind of pointcut: staticinitialization(@(Foo || List<String>) String) Now the compiler correctly says: no static initialization join points for parameterized types, use raw type instead Relates to #221. Signed-off-by: Alexander Kriegisch <[email protected]>
kriegaex
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 12, 2024
Closes #221 Signed-off-by: Alexander Kriegisch <[email protected]>
kriegaex
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 12, 2024
Due to the latest improvements, an error which was previously not thrown unexpectedly according to a source code comment in test aspect ParameterizedTypesInAnnotationPatterns.aj is now thrown for this kind of pointcut: staticinitialization(@(Foo || List<String>) String) Now the compiler correctly says: no static initialization join points for parameterized types, use raw type instead Relates to #221. Signed-off-by: Alexander Kriegisch <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
When a
WildTypePattern
in converted into anExactTypePattern
, type variables are currently ignored. I.e., the exact type pattern will have no type variable list. The only existingExactTypePattern
constructor does not even take aTypePatternList
parameter and hence also not pass it on to the super constructor.Consequently, when traversing the corresponding node with a pattern visitor, e.g. in order to also check type parameters for something illegal like
void[]
or primitive types in general - see also #216, #217 - with an empty type pattern list there will be no traversal and therefore no check at all. I would almost consider this a bug.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: