This commit is a slightly modified revert of 4f29c113.
IS_PRE_RELEASE allows to make LATEST_STABLE version behave as
experimental when this flag is set to true.
The general goal is to prepare fix of KT-62058; after this commit
one can do it by changing IS_PRE_RELEASE flag to true.
The fix of KT-62058 is planned to be done during bootstrapping.
This preparation and the future fix are parts of umbrella KT-61951.
^KT-62027 Fixed
`getCallablesCompatibility` requires parentSubstitutor as a parameter,
but we created a member-level substitutor
`getCallablesCompatibility` will create member-level substitutor itself,
no need to create member-level substitutor on the call site.
IndexOutOfBounds was happening in an attempt of creating member-level
substitutor
I will refactor the `createExpectActualTypeParameterSubstitutor` API in
the following commits later. It will help to avoid problems like that
There is IDE quick fix which suggests to copy mismatched annotation
from `expect` to `actual` (see KTIJ-26633). It needs to find
`actual` PsiElement where to add annotation. Before previous commit, it
was easy - just get source of `Incompatibility.actualSymbol`.
After previous commit, the problem might be in value parameter, while
`actualSymbol` would contain function symbol. This is solved by adding
new field `Incompatibility.actualAnnotationTargetElement`.
`SourceElementMarker` introduced, because it's needed to be used in
abstract checker. Existing `DeclarationSymbolMarker` doesn't fit
because in next PR for this issue annotations set on types will be reported,
and types are not declarations.
^KT-60671
Rename analysis flag `expectActualLinker` to `skipExpectedActualDeclarationChecker`
to better reflect its semantics. This flag isn't used on IDE plugin side, so no
additional changes in `intellij` repo are needed.
^KT-61136
- AnnotationDescriptor#argumentValue is not frontend-specific
- AnnotationDescriptor#getAnnotationStringValue is not Native-specific
We are going to need these functions in the IR code, so it makes
sense to factor them out to the core module.
Collecting all modules takes a lot of time in Evaluate Expression in
IDE, and it's useless because we then invoke JvmIrLinker to load module
headers, but that linker is discarded in the IDE (see `val irProviders`
below).
#IDEA-329915
...not reporting on companion object members as well as other
nested classes.
Annotation classes are accepted because this is how it already worked,
see other tests, for example `annotationsViaActualTypeAlias.kt`.
Test for nested annotation classes will be added in subsequent commit,
because it currently will fail in test
`TreeCompareTest.testCompareDiagnostics` because light-tree2fir
produces different tree due to a bug when converting properties
from expect primary constructor. See subsequent commit for a fix.
Review: KT-MR-12107
^KT-61784
The main idea is getting rid of stub types and using just type variables
See more detailed description at docs/fir/delegated_property_inference.md
The problem with stub types is that they need really special treatment
in many places, and on the other hand, there are no clear contracts on
how they should work (that regularly leads to bugs like KT-59529)
^KT-61060 Fixed
^KT-61075 Fixed
^KT-61077 Fixed
^KT-59529 Fixed
^KT-61633 Related
^KT-61618 Related
^KT-61740 Related
^KT-59107 Related
^KT-61747 Related
^KT-61077 Related
^KT-61781 Related
@ImplicitlyActualizedByJvmDeclaration is the only one
OptionalExpectation annotation which works correctly when set only on
`expect`. All other (like @JvmName, @JsName) - not, so warning for them
must be reported.
^KT-61725 Fixed
^KT-61573 Fixed
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11969/timeline
Tests:
- MultiPlatformIntegrationTestGenerated
- CliTestGenerated
- MultiPlatformIntegrationTestGenerated
- DiagnosticTestGenerated.Multiplatform
- FirLightTreeOldFrontendDiagnosticsTestGenerated
Also add -Xexpect-actual-classes flag to all necessary ./libraries/* modules
Otherwise compilation of those modules failes because of `-Werror`
^KT-61039 Fixed
KT-59739 is now open for K1 (but fixed in K2)
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11867/timeline
This partially reverts commit 4f3ecedbca.
Only K1 part is reverted.
Motivation for revert: KT-59739 cannot be properly fixed in K1 because
of the bug it causes - KT-61039
We just accepted that we will have one more "green in K1 -> red in K2"
case
In scope of: KT-22841
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11867/timeline
Reduce complexity by reusing "expect-actual matcher" (namely
`AbstractExpectActualCompatibilityChecker.getCallablesCompatibility`)
The current solution has worse algorithmic complexity. Previously it was
O(n) in the best case, where `n` is a number of members. Now, it's
O(m^2), where `m` is number of members in one overload group. But we
prefer to have worse complexity but reuse expect-actual matcher, number
of elements in one overload group shall not be big on real world
examples.
The previous logic was non-trivial because it compared types with with
double comparison in `equals`.
This reverts commit 529a1dd720.
This commit was needed to workaround broken incremental compilation in
JPS in Kotlin plugin. The incremental compilation bug is reported
KT-60759
As promised in 529a1dd720, after a few
days in `master` I revert it
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11724/timeline
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11039/timeline
For StrongIncompatible `actual` declaration is considered as overload
and error reports on expected declaration. For WeakIncompatible the
error is reported straight away
Before the refactoring `areCompatibleClassScopes` returned just
`Incompatible`. It is bad because StrongIncompatible isn't possible for
classes (classes can't be overloaded). Now all class incompatibilities
are weak.
The commit has a minor impact on observable behavior (cases where we
reported the compilation problems are still reported but on another
elements):
- We no longer report type parameter class incompatibilities on expect
declaration, we report them only on actuals (it happened because all
WeakIncompatible are reported only on actuals)
- In a sense, Java implicit actualization was the only way to "overload"
classes (it would be a redeclaration compilation problem, so it
doesn't count as a valid "overload"). And since type parameters
incompatibility was StrongIncompatible for classes, we counted them as
"overloads" and didn't report incompatibility problems on Kotlin
class. Now we do report. (see
implicitJavaActualization_multipleActuals)
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11039/timeline
Extract main logic of `areCompatibleCallables` into two functions:
`areStrongIncompatibleCallables` and `areWeakIncompatibleCallables`.
The main point is that `areStrongIncompatibleCallables` &
`areWeakIncompatibleCallables` have very specific return types.
This commit doesn't change any logic. The commit makes the API more
type-safe ensuring that bugs like in previous commit (KT-60902) won't
happen again
This is needed to workaround broken incremental compilation in JPS in
Kotlin plugin. The incremental compilation bug is reported KT-60759
In Kotlin plugin I created the same commit which changes the name of the
function on the call-site.
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11039/timeline
After a few days in master branch, I will revert this commit
^KT-59665 Fixed
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11039/timeline
It's better to have this logic in common place
(AbstractExpectActualCompatibilityChecker) to avoid missing compilation
errors in the future
This commit fixes:
1. Missing compilation error for actual function with default arguments
for 'actual typealias' KT-59665
2. Missing compilation error for actual function with default arguments
for actual fake-override KT-59665
Alternative solution for KT-59665 is to create a special checker.
"incompatibility" vs "special checker":
Arguments for common incompatibility:
- What if we had a rule that expect and actual default params must
match? If so then it certainly would be an incompatibility.
- Technically, we do the matching of expect and actual params (because
we allow default params in common ancestors of expect and actual
declarations).
- It's hard to check that the actual definition doesn't use default
params because `ExpectedActualResolver.findActualForExpected` filters
out fake-overrides and doesn't return them. It's not clear logic for
me, that I'm afraid to touch.
implicitActualFakeOverride_AbstractMap.kt test breaks if you drop this
weird logic
- WEAK incompatibilities can be considered as "checkers". So it doesn't
matter how it's implemented, as a "incompatibility" or a "checker"
Arguments against common incompatibility:
- Although we match expect and actual declarations to allow default
params in common ancestors of expect and actual declarations, it's
still can be considered that we check that the actual declaration
doesn't have default params. And it doesn't feel right that we check
correctness of the actual declaration in expect-actual matcher.
- ~~It may change the rules of expect actual matching~~ (It's not true,
because ActualFunctionWithDefaultParameters is declared as WEAK
incompatibility)
Currently, for other synthetic properties, deprecation from the original
method is already being propagated to the relevant new synthetic
property accessor.
But what we need is also reporting warnings on synthetic properties
accessors call-sites if original methods are considered deprecated
as a result of deprecation propagation.
KT-60659 Fixed
^KT-60769 Fixed
This fixes the following
FirLightTreeDiagnosticsTestWithJvmIrBackendGenerated tests:
testPropertyInlineCycle
testInlineCycle
testSuspendInlineCycle
testIndirectInlineCycle
#KT-59586
By ignoring type parameters. Since type parameters in annotations are a
very limited feature, their sole use is to be able to specify them as
KClass argument: annotation class Foo<T: Any>(val bar: KClass<T>).
Since we can encounter type param only as a KClass type argument (and
never as a property type), simple approach of ignoring them works fine.
In that case, since we simply copy property types to synthetic
implementation class, its properties in IR start look like this:
annotation class FooImpl(override val bar: KClass<T of Foo>). This IR
seems to be not completely correct, since FooImpl.bar type contains T of
Foo param, which is out of its scope. However, so far I didn't
encounter any problems with this during testing and after MR discussion
this approach has been considered possible.
#KT-59558 Fixed
#KT-59036 Fixed
Mikhail Glukhikh