All but 7 tests now passing. Those 7 tests either do not refer to these circumstances or do not seem to pass even when modified to accept type specifications.
Updates the message to use the type or ValueDecl instead of this on previous 'Found this candidate' messages
Note: doees not yet change all test cases so more tests are failing
Improve Diagnostic message on overload ambiguitiy
Remove messages that say 'found this candidate' in favour of providing the type for the candidate to aid in selection when the candidates are presented in a dialogue window.
Fix more tests
This is a diagnostic that is only really emitted as a fallback when
the constraint system isn't able to better diagnose the expression.
It's not particulary helpful for the user, and can be often be
misleading since the underlying issue might not actually be an
ambiguity, and the user may well already have a type annotation. Let's
instead just emit the fallback diagnostic that we emit in all other
cases, asking the user to file a bug.
The bug tracked by rdar://158172056 was already fixed by
https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/pull/83607 but this additional test case is
needed to ensure that conformances to Obj-C protocols with obsolete
requirements imported under legacy spellings not regress again.
The previous message was just suggesting unchecked Sendable, but instead
we should be suggesting to add final to the class. We also don't
outright suggest using unchecked Sendable -- following
https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/pull/81738 precedent.
Resolves rdar://155790695
This check had two problems. First, it would assert upon encountering
a layout requirement, due to an unimplemented code path.
A more fundamental issue is that the logic wasn't fully sound, because
it would miss certain cases, for example:
protocol P {
associatedtype A
func run<B: Equatable>(_: B) where B == Self.A
}
Here, the reduced type of `Self.A` is `B`, and at first glance, the
requirement `B: Equatable` appears to be fine. However, this
is actually a new requirement on `Self`, and the protocol be rejected.
Now that we can change the reduction order by assigning weights to
generic parameters, this check can be implemented in a better way,
by building a new generic signature first, where all generic
parameters introduced by the protocol method, like 'B' above, are
assigned a non-zero weight.
With this reduction order, any type that is equivalent to
a member type of `Self` will have a reduced type rooted in `Self`,
at which point the previous syntactic check becomes sound.
Since this may cause us to reject code we accepted previously,
the type checker now performs the check once: first on the original
signature, which may miss certain cases, and then again on the new
signature built with the weighted reduction order.
If the first check fails, we diagnose an error. If the second
check fails, we only diagnose a warning.
However, this warning will become an error soon, and it really
can cause compiler crashes and miscompiles to have a malformed
protocol like this.
Fixes rdar://116938972.
The concrete nesting limit, which defaults to 30, catches
things like A == G<A>. However, with something like
A == (A, A), you end up with an exponential problem size
before you hit the limit.
Add two new limits.
The first is the total size of the concrete type, counting
all leaves, which defaults to 4000. It can be set with the
-requirement-machine-max-concrete-size= frontend flag.
The second avoids an assertion in addTypeDifference() which
can be hit if a certain counter overflows before any other
limit is breached. This also defaults to 4000 and can be set
with the -requirement-machine-max-type-differences= frontend flag.
Evaluating LifetimeDependence changes the order that the declarations are
diagnosed. Fix this test output by flipping the order of two declarations. The
new order actually makes more sense to me.
In b30006837e, I changed the `if`
condition here to check for the absence of type variables as well
as type parameters. This is incorrect; the type variables come up
in ValueWitnessRequest, and the type parameters come up in
associated type inference. We want the matching to be more lax
in the former case.
Fixes rdar://149438520.
When generating a stub fix-it for a protocol conformance or implementation extension, Swift will now evaluate whether the context allows the declaration of stored properties and, if so, will suggest one. It will also use the `let` keyword instead of `var` if the property has no setter.
Changes the diagnostics emitted when an `@objc @implementation` extension is missing some of the members required by the extension:
• We now emit one error on the extension, plus a note for each missing member.
• Where possible, we also emit a note with a fix-it adding stubs.
For example:
```
9 | @objc @implementation extension ObjCClass {
| |- error: extension for main class interface does not provide all required implementations
| |- note: missing instance method 'method(fromHeader3:)'
| |- note: missing instance method 'method(fromHeader4:)'
| |- note: missing property 'propertyFromHeader7'
| |- note: missing property 'propertyFromHeader8'
| |- note: missing property 'propertyFromHeader9'
| |- note: missing instance method 'extensionMethod(fromHeader2:)'
| `- note: add stubs for missing '@implementation' requirements
```
With a fix-it on the last note to insert the following after the open brace:
```
@objc(methodFromHeader3:)
open func method(fromHeader3 param: Int32) {
<#code#>
}
@objc(methodFromHeader4:)
open func method(fromHeader4 param: Int32) {
<#code#>
}
@objc(propertyFromHeader7)
open var propertyFromHeader7: Int32 {
get {
<#code#>
}
set {
<#code#>
}
}
@objc(propertyFromHeader8)
open var propertyFromHeader8: Int32 {
get {
<#code#>
}
set {
<#code#>
}
}
@objc(propertyFromHeader9)
open var propertyFromHeader9: Int32 {
get {
<#code#>
}
set {
<#code#>
}
}
@objc(extensionMethodFromHeader2:)
open func extensionMethod(fromHeader2 param: Int32) {
<#code#>
}
```
Fixes rdar://130038221.
Print diagnostic groups as part of the LLVM printer in the same manner as the
Swift one does, always. Make `-print-diagnostic-groups` an inert option, since we
always print diagnostic group names with the `[#GroupName]` syntax.
As part of this, we no longer render the diagnostic group name as part
of the diagnostic *text*, instead leaving it up to the diagnostic
renderer to handle the category appropriately. Update all of the tests
that were depending on `-print-diagnostic-groups` putting it into the
text to instead use the `{{documentation-file=<file name>}}`
diagnostic verification syntax.
A protocol conformance can be ill-formed due to isolation mismatches
between witnesses and requirements, or with associated conformances.
Previously, such failures would be emitted as a number of separate
errors (downgraded to warnings in Swift 5), one for each witness and
potentially an extra for associated conformances. The rest was a
potential flood of diagnostics that was hard to sort through.
Collect all of the isolation-related problems for a given conformance
together and produce a single error (downgraded to a warning when
appropriate) that describes the overall issue. That error will have up
to three notes suggesting specific courses of action:
* Isolating the conformance (when the experimental feature is enabled)
* Marking the witnesses as 'nonisolated' where needed
*
The diagnostic also has notes to point out the witnesses/associated
conformances that have isolation problems. There is a new educational
note that also describes these options.
We give the same treatment to missing 'distributed' on witnesses to a
distributed protocol.
When diagnosing an isolation mismatch between a requirement and witness,
we would produce notes on the requirement itself suggesting the addition of
`async`. This is almost never what you want to do, and is often so far
away from the actual conforming type as to be useless. Remove this note,
and the non-function fallback that just points at the requirement, because
they are unhelpful.
This is staging for a rework of the way we deal with conformance-level
actor isolation problems.
The attribute makes the declaration unavailable from the perspective of clients
of the module's public interface and was creating a loophole that admitted
inappropriate unavailability.
Implement lookup of availability domains for identifiers on
`AvailabilityDomainOrIdentifier`. Add a bit to that type which represents
whether or not lookup has already been attempted. This allows both
`AvailableAttr` and `AvailabilitySpec` to share a common implementation of
domain lookup.
An `AvailableAttr` written in source with an unrecognized availability domain
is now only marked invalid after type-checking the attribute. This resulted in a
regression where `CaseIterable` synthesis was blocked incorrectly under the
following very narrow circumstances:
1. Every `@available` attribute on the elements of the enum is invalid.
2. The module is being emitted and lazy type-checking is enabled.
3. The enum is public and the only top-level declaration in the file.
Type-checking the attribute was delayed just enough that it would not be
considered invalid by the type the `CaseIterable` conformance was being
synthesized, resulting in a spurious error.
There were zero tests exercising `CaseIterable` synthesis for enums with
elements that have availability requirements, so I added some.
Resolves rdar://144897917.
Selectively revert 36683a804c to resolve
a source compatibility regression. See inline comment for use case. We
are going to consider acknowledging this use case in the rules in a
future release.
https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/pull/72659 turned out to have some
source compatibility fallout that we need to fix. Instead of introducing
yet another brittle compatibility hack, stop emitting errors about a
missing `any` altogether until a future language mode.
Besides resolving the compatibility issue, this will encourage
developers to adopt any sooner and grant us ample time to gracefully
address any remaining bugs before the source compatibility burden
resurfaces.
A subsequent commit adds a diagnostic group that will allow users to
escalate these warnings to errors with `-Werror ExistentialAny`.
When a function declaration has a body, its source range ends at the
closing curly brace, so it includes the `throws(E)`. However, a
protocol requirement doesn't have a body, and due to an oversight,
getSourceRange() was never updated to include the extra tokens
that appear after `throws` when the function declares a thrown
error type. As a result, unqualified lookup would fail to find a
generic parameter type, if that happened to be the thrown type.
Fixes rdar://problem/143950572.
A protocol conformance witness must be as available as its requirement. In
Swift 6.1 and earlier, the conformance checker failed to note that witnesses in
unavailable extensions are unavailable. That bug was fixed by a previous
change, but there was no test case covering it so the difference in behavior
was not acknowledged.
Related to rdar://143466010.
`x declared here` is not helpful and clear enough, especially when there
are other notes attached. Swap it for a new note that says
`requirement x declared here`.
The non-metatype case was never supported. The same should hold for the
existential metatype case, which used to miscompile and now crashes
because the invariant reference is deemed OK but the erasure expectedly
fails to handle it:
```swift
class C<T> {}
protocol P {
associatedtype A
func f() -> any P & C<A>
func fMeta() -> any (P & C<A>).Type
}
do {
let p: any P
let _ = p.f() // error
let _ = p.fMeta() // crash
}
```
Previously only some random decl attributes were included in the dump
with the source spelling (e.g. @objc), or some affected how the decl is
dumped. But the full attribute list has not been dumped. Dumping
attributes are useful for debugging attribute handling.
Today ParenType is used:
1. As the type of ParenExpr
2. As the payload type of an unlabeled single
associated value enum case (and the type of
ParenPattern).
3. As the type for an `(X)` TypeRepr
For 1, this leads to some odd behavior, e.g the
type of `(5.0 * 5).squareRoot()` is `(Double)`. For
2, we should be checking the arity of the enum case
constructor parameters and the presence of
ParenPattern respectively. Eventually we ought to
consider replacing Paren/TuplePattern with a
PatternList node, similar to ArgumentList.
3 is one case where it could be argued that there's
some utility in preserving the sugar of the type
that the user wrote. However it's really not clear
to me that this is particularly desirable since a
bunch of diagnostic logic is already stripping
ParenTypes. In cases where we care about how the
type was written in source, we really ought to be
consulting the TypeRepr.
