To do so, inside the root cause of inapplicable candidate errors,
we will record expected/actual type of receiver, if any.
That will help identifying inapplicable calls on nullable receiver.
Update includes:
- Changing syntax of `OI/`NI` tags from `<!NI;TAG!>` to `<!TAG{NI}!>`
- Fix some incorrect directives
- Change order of diagnostics in some places
- Remove ignored diagnostics from FIR test data (previously `DIAGNOSTICS` didn't work)
- Update FIR dumps in some places and add `FIR_IDENTICAL` if needed
- Replace all JAVAC_SKIP with SKIP_JAVAC directive
Call argument for conventional `contains` after expanding `in` may come from a `when` subject during its branch analysis.
In this case data flow info from a previous when branch was not considered,
because data flow info for subject had been used instead of data flow before argument.
Use of the latter one for the conventional `contains` solves the issue.
The old FE uses `isExternal` property of value arguments to skip smartcast reporting on `when` subject,
if they come from branches. To prevent undesired smartcasts on `when` subject after branch analysis in the new FE,
`isExternal` arguments are skipped in diagnostic reporter and during recorded type update.
Also, the new FE interprets `isExternal` completely differently from the old FE.
In the old FE this property is used exclusively by `when` with subject.
In the new FE it is also used for parially resolved calls, lambda return arguments and receivers.
This may be preventing the use of data flow info before argument in the first place, but this assumption requires additional investigation.
^KT-36818 Fixed
Add some classes to hierarchy of `ESValue`:
- `ESReceiver` -- representation of receiver
of lambda function
- `ESDataFlow` and `ESDataFlowReceiver` -- little refactoring of entities
that holds information for DFA (description in comments in code).
Also add kdoc to classes of `ESValue` hierarchy
Consider following expression: 'call() is Foo'. Suppose that we know
something about the 'call()', e.g. 'returns(foo) -> <condition>'
Previously, we've tried to re-use knowledge about 'call()', constructing
some smart clause, like 'returns(true) -> foo is Foo && <condition>'.
The conceptual error here is that *we can't* argue that <condition>
holds. Imagine that 'call()' actually has unspecified 'returns(foo2) ->
<!condition>', and 'foo2 is Foo' also holds. Then we would get
'returns(true) -> foo2 is Foo && <condition>' <=> 'returns(true) ->
<condition>' for the whole call, which is not correct.
More concrete example would be something like:
'if (!x.isNullOrEmpty() is Boolean)'
^KT-27241 Fixed
Functor is an imperative representation of function's contract (contrary
to ContractDescription, which is a declarative one). ContractDescription
is convenient when we deal with sources of contracts declarations
(binaries, source), while Functors are convenient for analyzing code
with contracts.
It means that we have to convert ContractDescription into Functor when
we start working with contracts. This computation isn't trivial, and
Functor and ContractDescription are in 1-1 correspondence, so we would
like to cache Functor for each ContractDescription somewhere.
We used to do this in binding trace, in slice FUNCTOR.
Now, it turns out that this approach causes "Rewrite at slice"
exception, see KT-28847. We won't go into details of why that happens
here, you can see the issue comments for details (but be prepared for the
very long and nitty-gritty story)
This commit removes the problematic slice and introduces another
approach, where Functor is attached to the ContractDescription, computed
lazily and cached here.
^KT-28847 Fixed
Jinseong Jeon