Extensions: address or split remaining open issues directly associated with test plan by jcouv · Pull Request #79452 · dotnet/roslyn

jcouv · 2025-07-17T22:27:54Z

Removes remaining references to test plan #76130
Closes #77933

This is best reviewed commit by commit.

Corresponding spec update: dotnet/csharplang#9535

jcouv · 2025-07-18T08:07:42Z

        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : It looks like the following error is not reported for instance scenario. Noise?

📝 See MakeDeconstructInvocationExpression line 661 #Closed

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs:24200 in 8d46bd8. [](commit_id = 8d46bd8, deletion_comment = True)

ghost · 2025-07-21T13:14:36Z

+                            continue;
+                        }
+
+                        // Note: we only care about methods since we're already decided this is a method group (ie. not resolving to some other kind of extension member)


since we're already decided this is a method group

Where did we decide that? #Closed

that's the behavior we have chosen for determining unique signature in newer LangVer (see GetUniqueSignatureFromMethodGroup line 11090 below)

that's consistent with how lookup works in general (we work up inheritance chain and if we get a method first, we'll keep looking at other methods to complete the method group, ignoring non-methods)

Maybe I misunderstood the question. If we get here, the caller is asking what is the function type of this method group.

Perhaps it would be clearer to say that we decided that we want to extract signature from candidate methods. The term "method group" is somewhat confusing with respect to extensions, since it can resolve to a non-method.

ghost · 2025-07-21T13:30:04Z

        Assert.Equal(SymbolKind.Parameter, symbol.Kind);
        Assert.Equal("System.Int32 i", symbol.ToTestDisplayString());
+
+        Assert.Equal("E", model.GetEnclosingSymbol(extensionParameter.SpanStart).ToTestDisplayString());


Assert.Equal("E", model.GetEnclosingSymbol(extensionParameter.SpanStart).ToTestDisplayString());

Is this consistent with method parameters? Do we get type when we call GetEnclosingSymbol in parameter list? #Closed

ghost · 2025-07-21T13:32:55Z

        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : It looks like the following error is not reported for instance scenario. Noise?

The reason behind removal of this comment is not obvious #Closed

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs:24200 in 8d46bd8. [](commit_id = 8d46bd8, deletion_comment = True)

ghost · 2025-07-21T14:02:18Z

            }
            else if (typeKind == TypeKind.Extension)
            {
+                _ = compilation.GetSpecialType(SpecialType.System_Object);


_ = compilation.GetSpecialType(SpecialType.System_Object);

What is the purpose of this operation? #Closed

It's meant to produce a diagnostic, but doesn't... Fixed,, added test and stepped through. Thanks

ghost · 2025-07-21T14:02:47Z

            Debug.Assert(((Cci.ITypeReference)this).AsTypeDefinition(context) != null);
            NamedTypeSymbol baseType = AdaptedNamedTypeSymbol.BaseTypeNoUseSiteDiagnostics;

-            if (AdaptedNamedTypeSymbol.IsScriptClass || AdaptedNamedTypeSymbol.IsExtension) // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : we should have checked the presence of System.Object


// Tracked by #76130 : we should have checked the presence of System.Object

I would expect to see a test added. #Closed

ghost · 2025-07-21T14:12:49Z

    }

+    [Fact]
+    public void Dynamic_07()


Dynamic_07

What is the purpose of Dynamic_07 - Dynamic_09? It doesn't look like they test dynamic invocations? #Closed

I didn't understand the comment. In Dynamic_07 the parameter of the local function is dynamic and the invocation uses runtime binder. Each of these tests goes through LocalRewriter.VisitDynamicInvocation

I didn't understand the comment.

What dynamic invocation you intend to test?

ghost · 2025-07-21T14:38:39Z

Done with review pass (commit 23)

ghost · 2025-07-21T16:50:10Z

        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : It looks like the following error is not reported for instance scenario. Noise?

Just to confirm, did you see the comment I'd left?

📝 See MakeDeconstructInvocationExpression line 661

In reply to: 3096811863

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs:24200 in 8d46bd8. [](commit_id = 8d46bd8, deletion_comment = True)

ghost · 2025-07-22T15:57:14Z

        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : It looks like the following error is not reported for instance scenario. Noise?

Just to confirm, did you see the comment I'd left?

📝 See MakeDeconstructInvocationExpression line 661

What am I supposed to see there?

In reply to: 3097572916

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs:24200 in 8d46bd8. [](commit_id = 8d46bd8, deletion_comment = True)

ghost

LGTM (commit 26)

ghost · 2025-07-23T07:14:50Z

+        comp = CreateCompilation(src, references: [libRef], parseOptions: TestOptions.Regular13);
+        CompileAndVerify(comp, expectedOutput: "ran").VerifyDiagnostics(unnecessaryDirective);
+
+        if (!CompilationExtensions.EnableVerifyUsedAssemblies) // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78968


@AlekseyTs FYI, the used assemblies leg hit an issue in VerifyUsedAssemblyReferences (line 1843, reporting an unexpected diagnostic that namespace N cannot be found when the set of referenced assemblies is shrunk).
The strange thing is that VerifyDiagnostics doesn't complain about unnecessary using but GetUsedAssemblyReferences() doesn't report the assembly containing namespace N as used.
I will investigate in a follow-up.

jcouv self-assigned this Jul 17, 2025

jcouv added Area-Compilers Feature - Extension Everything The extension everything feature labels Jul 17, 2025

jcouv force-pushed the extensions-followups branch 2 times, most recently from b7c6cd8 to 7312e4f Compare July 18, 2025 06:33

jcouv added 2 commits July 18, 2025 00:19

ReplaceWithExtensionImplementation

a7b8337

Address acceptOnlyMethods

77c106a

jcouv force-pushed the extensions-followups branch 2 times, most recently from e86b2f1 to e4260cc Compare July 18, 2025 07:31

jcouv added 19 commits July 18, 2025 01:03

Follow-ups on unique signature

a8a9da2

Some missed comments for interceptors

1fa8d49

BuildArgumentsForErrorRecovery not reachable for extension properties

5e37325

nullability

7a406cb

Semantic model follow-ups

5324232

Operations

8d46bd8

See MakeDeconstructInvocationExpression line 661

27934c4

Expected based on GetSemanticSymbols (called from GetMemberGroupForNode)

550f190

Expression tree follow-up

9d23ff2

Method group with static/instance mismatch has expected behavior

4c91ee4

Base type check

77a8add

EnC follow-up

c532cea

Order of events

d928bbe

TypeMap

b934bf5

Dynamic invocation

7a434de

using directives

08147a8

MemberNameSameAsType

a0750b5

ExtractCastInvocation. Need some help

454eaef

Receiver requirements

e62a6e7

jcouv force-pushed the extensions-followups branch from e4260cc to e62a6e7 Compare July 18, 2025 08:04

AlekseyTs reviewed Jul 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

Address feedback

c2419b4

Address feedback

0cb34ee

jcouv requested a review from jjonescz July 22, 2025 17:29

Update comment

01dbe85

jcouv requested a review from AlekseyTs July 22, 2025 17:34

AlekseyTs approved these changes Jul 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

jjonescz approved these changes Jul 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'dotnet/main' into extensions-followups

6e282c7

jcouv enabled auto-merge (squash) July 22, 2025 18:56

Julien Couvreur added 2 commits July 22, 2025 15:09

Fix expected IL in net472 test

61b0198

Tag follow-up issue with used assemblies

a0cc39d

jcouv commented Jul 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

jcouv merged commit cb8d294 into dotnet:main Jul 23, 2025

dotnet-policy-service Bot added this to the Next milestone Jul 23, 2025

jcouv deleted the extensions-followups branch July 23, 2025 17:42

This was referenced Jul 29, 2025

[Automated] PRs inserted in VS build main-10828.76 #79646

Closed

[Automated] PRs inserted in VS build feature.debugger.main-10829.226 #79679

Closed

RikkiGibson modified the milestones: Next, 18.0 P1 Aug 19, 2025

dotnet-bot mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2025

[Automated] PRs inserted in VS build feature.Wix5-10921.95 #80011

Closed

Conversation

jcouv commented Jul 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jcouv commented Jul 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 21, 2025 • edited by AlekseyTs Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 21, 2025 • edited by AlekseyTs Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost commented Jul 21, 2025 • edited by AlekseyTs Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 21, 2025 • edited by AlekseyTs Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 21, 2025 • edited by AlekseyTs Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 21, 2025 • edited by AlekseyTs Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost commented Jul 21, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost commented Jul 21, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost commented Jul 22, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Jul 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

jcouv commented Jul 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jcouv commented Jul 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

ghost Jul 21, 2025 •

edited by AlekseyTs

Loading

ghost Jul 21, 2025 •

edited by AlekseyTs

Loading

ghost commented Jul 21, 2025 •

edited by AlekseyTs

Loading

ghost Jul 21, 2025 •

edited by AlekseyTs

Loading

ghost Jul 21, 2025 •

edited by AlekseyTs

Loading

ghost Jul 21, 2025 •

edited by AlekseyTs

Loading