refactor: ExprVisitor type validation
#3739
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
Codecov ReportAttention:
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3739 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 84.73% 84.61% -0.12%
==========================================
Files 92 92
Lines 13125 13122 -3
Branches 2928 2933 +5
==========================================
- Hits 11121 11103 -18
- Misses 1541 1555 +14
- Partials 463 464 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
tserg
commented
Jan 26, 2024
vyper/semantics/analysis/local.py
Outdated
Comment on lines
498
to
502
| if ( | ||
| not isinstance(typ, TYPE_T) | ||
| and not isinstance(node, (vy_ast.Index, vy_ast.Tuple)) # can be deferred | ||
| and not isinstance(node.get_ancestor(), (vy_ast.Expr, vy_ast.Log)) | ||
| ): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these are the exceptions that we need to work around, or alternatively it can also be skipped by wrapping the type in a TYPE_T for Expr, Log and Index nodes.
tserg
commented
Jan 26, 2024
vyper/semantics/analysis/local.py
Outdated
| @@ -690,7 +667,7 @@ def visit_Subscript(self, node: vy_ast.Subscript, typ: VyperType) -> None: | |||
| index_types = get_possible_types_from_node(node.slice.value) | |||
| index_type = index_types.pop() | |||
|
|
|||
| self.visit(node.slice, index_type) | |||
| self.visit(node.slice, TYPE_T(index_type)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this probably should be reverted (since removal of the Index ast node)
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
charles-cooper
approved these changes
Feb 5, 2024
charles-cooper
changed the title
ExprVisitor type validation
we should update the InvalidType exception raised in validate_expected_type to raise TypeMismatch instead, but it can be a follow-up PR
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.
What I did
Standardize local visitor to always call
validate_expected_typein the genericvisit(), instead of on an ad-hoc basis within the visit for each node.How I did it
How to verify it
Commit message
Description for the changelog
Cute Animal Picture