This makes the `returns() implies` checker slightly cleaner, and also
fixes the case that I've missed where in RHS of `x ?:` type of `x` was
not set to `Nothing?`.
This also fixes some returnsNotNull contracts because the old code added
an implication that `== true` => `!= null` then promptly removed any
statement that this could've affected if the argument was a synthetic
variable.
^KT-26612 tag fixed-in-k2
If the right-hand side is evaluated at all, then in its flow those
statements were already approved. Re-approving them erases the effect of
reassignments.
^KT-28369 tag fixed-in-k2
In theory, forking persistent flows should be cheap because of object
reuse, so the proposal here is to start from scratch and prove
redundancy of forks on a case-by-case basis. Something something better
safe than sorry.
^KT-28333 tag fixed-in-k2
^KT-28489 tag fixed-in-k2
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/6753
All redundant I managed to find, of course.
Why: I'm going to process all reflect dependencies in the next commits.
Cleanup reflect dependency before processing.
They are redundant because:
1. if `compileOnly` then compilation didn't break after dropping the
dependency
2. if `test*` then tests didn't break after dropping the dependency.
3. `analysis/analysis-api-fir/analysis-api-fir-generator/build.gradle.kts`
`compiler/fir/checkers/checkers-component-generator/build.gradle.kts`
Drop `implementation(project(":kotlin-reflect-api"))` because the
module already depends on
`implementation(project(":kotlin-reflect"))`
4. `compiler/daemon/daemon-client/build.gradle.kts`. Drop `runtimeOnly`
because after dropping `compileOnly` compilation didn't break (so
`runtimeOnly` looks suspicious). Less safe than 1-3
* wrong method was called from FirDataFlowAnalyzer.exitFunctionCall;
* map from function to affected properties should be keyed by symbol,
not FirFunction, as the latter may change;
* arguments of `return` and assignment statements should be visited,
as they may contain lambdas.
If we want to analyse some function's call, we need to know about its
contracts, otherwise resolving the following code would be broken.
Computing return type of function is a prerequisite to using it in any
sensible way, so it's the best place to resolve it to CONTRACTS
KT-50733
* Change 1.6 to 1.7 constants
* Fix SAFE_CALL_WILL_CHANGE_NULLABILITY for testData
* Change EXPOSED_PROPERTY_TYPE_IN_CONSTRUCTOR_WARNING to EXPOSED_PROPERTY_TYPE_IN_CONSTRUCTOR_ERROR
* Change NON_EXHAUSTIVE_WHEN_STATEMENT to NO_ELSE_IN_WHEN
* Fix testData for SafeCallsAreAlwaysNullable
* Change T -> T & Any in test dumps
* Change INVALID_CHARACTERS_NATIVE_WARNING -> INVALID_CHARACTERS_NATIVE_ERROR
* TYPECHECKER_HAS_RUN_INTO_RECURSIVE_PROBLEM_WARNING -> TYPECHECKER_HAS_RUN_INTO_RECURSIVE_PROBLEM_ERROR
Dmitriy Novozhilov