Do not treat members with already changed signature as a reason
to create a hidden copy
See tests for clarification:
- There are `charAt` method in B that has different name in Kotlin - `get`,
i.e. relevant descriptor has initialSignatureDescriptor != null
- When collecting methods from supertypes, `charAt` from A is also get
transformed to `get`
- So it has effectively the same signature as B.get (already declared)
- If by an accident B.get had been declared with Kotlin signature
we would have add A.charAt (after transformation) with special flag:
HiddenToOvercomeSignatureClash (hides it from resolution)
- But here B.charAt was artificially changed to `get`, so no signature clash
actually happened
#KT-13730 Fixed
It works only for Java methods and it's purpose is Java overridability rules emulation,
namely distinction of primitive types and their wrappers.
For example `void foo(Integer x)` should not be an override for `void foo(int x)`
#KT-11440 Fixed
#KT-11389 Fixed
Encapsulate everything that is needed in checkers into CallCheckerContext. Pass
an instance of this context instead of BasicCallResolutionContext to checkers.
Also pass an instance of the element to report errors on: this is useful
because before this, every checker had its own way of determining where should
the error be reported on. Some of them, for example, were not doing anything if
Call#calleeExpression returned null, which is wrong, see operatorCall.kt
#KT-12875 Open
Use the same component (NotFoundClasses) as in loading of compiled Kotlin
symbols.
Some tests were changed to avoid a diagnostic that is now reported when a
non-found class is encountered in a signature (e.g. staticMethod.1.java where
JDK seems to be not configured)
#KT-10493 Fixed
#KT-10820 Fixed
#KT-11368 Fixed
Load immutable flexible upper bound for 'Iterable<? super T>'
We load 'Collection<? super CharSequence>' as 'MutableCollection<in CharSequence>'
instead of 'MutableCollection<in CharSequence>..Collection<*>'
because it's obviously not typesafe to use any 'Collection<*>'
as argument for such type.
But there'se nothing bad with loading 'Iterable<? super CharSequence>'
as 'MutableIterable<*>..Collection<*>'. Same for other declarations that have
covariant mutable representation (currently Iterator, ListIterator).
Also there are useful use-cases when it's neccessary to use 'Iterable<*>'
as an argument for parameter with type 'Iterable<? super T>' (see matchers.kt test).
NB: Star-projections appear in examples because types like 'Collection<in CharSequence>'
with conflicting use-site projections are invalid in Kotlin, but they are valid in Java.
It helps to get rid of semantics duplicating and fixes known bugs
- SOE in OnlyAbstractMethodFinder.find
- type enhancement for SAM constructors
#KT-11287 Fixed
#KT-11322 Fixed
EA-77989 Fixed
Fake overrides are still created for java static with non-empty overriddenDescriptors
Add tests for inheriting visibility for java static members
Add test: check that java static declarations that shadow deprecated declarations should not be deprecated
Add test for corner case where "overriding" java static constant led to incorrect type in inheritor
Fix test data for existing tests
non-accessible in the current context, it is a compiler error.
Otherwise we might generate a CHECKCAST instruction that causes IAE at run-time.
Here we are somewhat less permissive then Java
(see inaccessibleType.kt in diagnostics tests).
Instead of erasing descriptors with conflicting substitution,
use invariant CapturedType(<projection>) as replacement for type parameter
within default member scope.
After substitution leave such types 'as is' everywhere except return types,
use common approximation for them.
#KT-9294 In Progress
#KT-5411 Fixed
#KT-8647 Fixed
#KT-9462 Fixed
#KT-9893 Fixed
#KT-7581 Fixed
#KT-7296 In Progress
Before this change they could only negatively affect on result
Now they may force success result
Also refine overridavility condition for java fields:
two java fields having the same name are seen as overrides even
if they have different type
It has been done just to avoid clashes with real declarations that look
like our builtins: e.g. 'String removeAt(int index) {}' and 'String remove(int index) {}'in Java.
But synthesized members are even weaker than extensions.
Solution is just to ignore the latter declaration and treat first as effective override
of out builltin.
Valentin Kipyatkov