-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.2k
Nullable extensions: Add assertion to AsMemberOfType and handle failures #79428
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
Merged
+214
−33
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f267ef8
Nullable extensions: Add assertion to AsMemberOfType and handle prope…
RikkiGibson ed42b3d
adjust diagnostic syntax for extension property pattern warnings
RikkiGibson 8081099
more
RikkiGibson 4a5c871
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into ext-nullability-3
RikkiGibson 7e0679f
Address feedback
RikkiGibson e7053b2
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into ext-nullability-3
RikkiGibson File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
At first I tried to just add this kind to
s_skippedExpressions
. But that just controls whether the debug visitor will visit that kind. Essentially it just states an expectation thatNullableWalker
won't visit something, when, what we want here is the opposite, to tolerate thatNullableWalker
will visit something which the debug verifier won't visit. Possibly I misunderstood something, though, and this isn't the best place to make this change, or an appropriate type to use.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is basically being done so that we can cook up a receiver expression for the property pattern access, and let the VisitArguments machinery handle the reinference of the extension, conversion of property receiver to extension parameter type, etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess my question is: should we actually be peaking through the
BoundExpressionWithNullability
here and setting the underlying expression's state? Feels like we may miss something if we don't?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The issue is there is no underlying expression in the bound tree for an extension property pattern. I just know what the receiver type is and would like to thread it through, having all the extension reinference and conversion checks from
VisitArguments
just work.