Skip to content

[Parser] Fix the fixit for protocol compositions' syntax change (3.0) #4486

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
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 25, 2016
Merged

[Parser] Fix the fixit for protocol compositions' syntax change (3.0) #4486

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 25, 2016

Conversation

nkcsgexi
Copy link
Contributor

@nkcsgexi nkcsgexi commented Aug 24, 2016

  • Explanation: When migrating, we found our fixit to replace the old protocol composition syntax, namely Protocol<A, B>, to the new syntax, A & B, does not preserve the trailing content after >. For instance, we replace Protocol<A, B>? with A & B. This patch fixes the issue by inserting whatever after > in the old syntax to the new replacement string.
  • Scope: This effects both migrator and users' experience with compiler fixit. Without this patch, we may end up changing users' code incorrectly.
  • Risk: Low.
  • Reviewed by: Ben Langmuir
  • Test: Regression test added; existing test updated.

Resolved bug number: (SR-)


Before merging this pull request to apple/swift repository:

  • Test pull request on Swift continuous integration.

Triggering Swift CI

The swift-ci is triggered by writing a comment on this PR addressed to the GitHub user @swift-ci. Different tests will run depending on the specific comment that you use. The currently available comments are:

Smoke Testing

Platform Comment
All supported platforms @swift-ci Please smoke test
All supported platforms @swift-ci Please smoke test and merge
OS X platform @swift-ci Please smoke test OS X platform
Linux platform @swift-ci Please smoke test Linux platform

A smoke test on macOS does the following:

  1. Builds the compiler incrementally.
  2. Builds the standard library only for macOS. Simulator standard libraries and
    device standard libraries are not built.
  3. lldb is not built.
  4. The test and validation-test targets are run only for macOS. The optimized
    version of these tests are not run.

A smoke test on Linux does the following:

  1. Builds the compiler incrementally.
  2. Builds the standard library incrementally.
  3. lldb is built incrementally.
  4. The swift test and validation-test targets are run. The optimized version of these
    tests are not run.
  5. lldb is tested.

Validation Testing

Platform Comment
All supported platforms @swift-ci Please test
All supported platforms @swift-ci Please test and merge
OS X platform @swift-ci Please test OS X platform
OS X platform @swift-ci Please benchmark
Linux platform @swift-ci Please test Linux platform

Lint Testing

Language Comment
Python @swift-ci Please Python lint

Note: Only members of the Apple organization can trigger swift-ci.

…cing Protocol<A, B>. rdar://27992964

When migrating, we found our fixit to replace the old protocol composition syntax, namely "Protocol<A, B>",
to the new syntax, "A & B", does not preserve the trailing content after '>'. For instance, we replace "Protocol<A, B>?"
with "A & B". This patch fixes the issue by inserting whatever after '>' in the old syntax to the new
replacement string. I consider this as a hack; the root-cause fix should be in the lexer to smartly separate
'>' and '?' as two tokens instead of one.
@nkcsgexi nkcsgexi added this to the Swift 3.0 milestone Aug 24, 2016
@nkcsgexi
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swift-ci Please test OS X platform

@DougGregor
Copy link
Member

This LGTM. Thanks for fixing this.

@akyrtzi akyrtzi merged commit e0e4633 into swiftlang:swift-3.0-branch Aug 25, 2016
@nkcsgexi nkcsgexi deleted the protocol-composition-fixit-3.0 branch August 26, 2016 21:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants