When we encounter unsafe code in `if let x`, we would produce a Fix-It
that would change it to the ill-formed `if let unsafe x`. Improve
tracking of the expressions that are synthesized for the right-hand
side of these conditions, so that we can produce a Fix-It that turns
this into the proper
if let x = unsafe x
Fixes rdar://147944243.
While doing #76740 I iteratively was adding new `REQUIRES:` as new
usages of the features were found, but I did not realize that at the
same time other people might be removing some of those usages. The tests
in this commit had some `REQUIRES:` line for a previous
`-enable-experimental/upcoming-feature`, but they not longer use those
features, so the `REQUIRES:` were effectively disabling the tests (at
least in the case of `KeyPathWithStaticMembers`. In other cases they
might still had executed).
Find all the usages of `--enable-experimental-feature` or
`--enable-upcoming-feature` in the tests and replace some of the
`REQUIRES: asserts` to use `REQUIRES: swift-feature-Foo` instead, which
should correctly apply to depending on the asserts/noasserts mode of the
toolchain for each feature.
Remove some comments that talked about enabling asserts since they don't
apply anymore (but I might had miss some).
All this was done with an automated script, so some formatting weirdness
might happen, but I hope I fixed most of those.
There might be some tests that were `REQUIRES: asserts` that might run
in `noasserts` toolchains now. This will normally be because their
feature went from experimental to upcoming/base and the tests were not
updated.
Impose the same limit we impose on other
forms of control flow statements (e.g `break`,
`continue`, `return`), where it cannot transfer
control out of the expression. This fixes a crash
where we'd fail to find a fallthrough nested in an
`if` expression. It is technically source breaking,
as we would have allowed the case where the `if`
expression is a directly nested result of an outer
`switch` expression, but I would be very surprised
if anyone is relying on that.
rdar://133845101
Allow `fallthrough` to appear as the last statement
in the case of a `switch` expression. We already
allowed it in other positions, this was just an
oversight.
rdar://127670432
Make it clear the issue is the transfer of
control flow out of the `if`/`switch` expression.
Technically things like `break` and `continue` are
allowed, as long as they are not jumping out of
the expression.
The issue is that the shorthand if let syntax injects an implicit
expression: https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/40694/ in ParseStmt and
that the 'diagnoseUnhandledAsyncSite' explicitly avoids reporting errors
in implicit expressions.
This change is that we don't mark the implicit declref code emitted by
the `if let prop` as implicit anymore, and this way the reporting works
out as expected.
Added some tests covering this as well as properly erroring out for the
nonexistent syntax of shortand + awaiting which doesn't exist, and we
properly error on it.
Resolves rdar://126169564
When using shorthand syntax for optional binding,
if the variable we are binding is accessed asynchronously,
provide an insertion fixIt of the form: ' = await (identifier)'.
Previously, we would suggest only adding the 'await'
which resulted in an error since the identifier is required.
Remove keypath subtype asserts; always use cached root type
Add tests for keypaths converted to funcs with inout param
Add unit test for overload selection
This removes the distinction between argument completions and postfix expr paren completions, which was meaningless since solver-based completion.
It then determines whether to suggest the entire function call pattern (with all argument labels) or only a single argument based on whether there are any existing arguments in the call.
For this to work properly, we need to improve parser recovery a little bit so that it parsers arguments after the code completion token properly.
This should make call pattern heuristics obsolete.
rdar://84809503
In asserts builds this hits an assert that the
feature isn't enabled, and in no-asserts builds
this incorrectly allows `do` expressions to be
used with the feature disabled. Note this only
affects their use when nested in an `if`/`switch`
that is used in a binding, we correctly handled
the other cases.
rdar://121193678
If root type of a key path has been determined to be a hole there
is no reason to delay the inference decision which should be a
failure because none of the components would be inferrable from
a placeholder root.
Produce a tailored diagnostic that omits a fully unresolved key path
type (`KeyPath<_, _>`) when key path without an explicit root type is
passed as an argument to non-keypath parameter type (i.e. `Int`).
Since key path root is now transitively inferred. Key path type
inference can be delayed until key path is resolved enough to
infer its capability.
This solves multiple problems:
- Inference fully controls what key path type is bound to;
- KeyPath constraint simplification doesn't have to double-check
the capability and attempt to re-bind key path type;
- Custom logic to resolve key path type is no longer necessary;
- Diagnostics are improved because capability and root/value type
mismatch are diagnosed when key path is matched against the
contextual type.
Covariant conversions between explicit and contextual/inferred root
types of a key path are simulated through a subtype constraint which
has to be attached to a `KeyPathRoot` element.
If key path is connected to a disjunction directly or indirectly
(i.e. via ApplicableFunction constraint) do not attempt to bind
it until disjunction is taken, otherwise there is a risk to miss
a valid keypath-to-function conversion.
If there is something wrong with the context, let's assign a default
KeyPath type to the key path literal to avoid propagating placeholder
into the key path inference.
For methods there are two possibilities - force unwrap and
conditional, that's why we need a disjunction with two choices.
This is not the case for key path root type it could only
be force unwrapped.
A key path without an explicit root cannot be unwrapped since the
optionality is inferred from context and we cannot suggest removing
that, adding explicit type is not going to change anything and
`!` and `?` after the leading dot is not supported.
`tryMatchRootAndValueFromType` anchored both root and value match
constraints directly on the key path expression. That is incorrect
because we have special locators for that.
If key path literal is passed as an argument to a function/subscript
application its type cannot be resolved until the overload for the
call is selected, otherwise it could prevent a valid keypath-to-function
conversion in cases were argument ends up being a function type.
If type of the key path expression is convertible to an existential
value with a superclass constraint represented as a known key path
type, we can use it to inform key path inference.
Resolves: rdar://93103421
