This commit covers enum entry vs companion member case,
when two companion objects are in the scope.
K1 reports UNRESOLVED_REFERENCE here, probably due to ambiguity.
About K2, while resolving Some.foo it first tries to resolve Some
as a "general" variable access, and gets two candidates with companions.
After that it tries to resolve Some as a qualifier,
but we have no scope with a single qualifier, so no influence here.
With two ambiguous candidates with companions for Some,
OVERLOAD_RESOLUTION_AMBIGUITY is reported.
This commit covers enum entry vs companion member case,
when one companion object is in the scope.
K1 reports UNRESOLVED_REFERENCE here, probably due to ambiguity.
About K2, while resolving Some.foo it first tries to resolve Some
as a "general" variable access, and gets the only candidate with companion.
After that it tries to resolve Some as a qualifier,
but we have no scope with a single qualifier, so no influence here.
Finally during foo resolve it should choose between enum entry and
companion member, and enum entry wins due to KT-37591.
This commit covers object vs static member case,
when no companion objects are in the scope.
K1 reports UNRESOLVED_REFERENCE here, probably due to ambiguity.
About K2, while resolving Some.foo it first tries to resolve Some
as a "general" variable access, and gets two erroneous candidates
without companions. After it tries to resolve Some as a qualifier,
but we have no scope with a single qualifier.
That's why we finally report NONE_APPLICABLE on candidates with companions.
This commit covers object vs companion member vs static member case
but now we have two different companions (first is empty) in the scope.
K1 reports UNRESOLVED_REFERENCE here, probably due to ambiguity.
About K2, while resolving Some.foo it first tries to resolve Some
as a "general" variable access, and gets some/Some & some2/Some
because both of them have a companion. This means ambiguity.
After it tries to resolve Some as a qualifier, but we have no scope
with a single qualifier, so finally we prefer to report ambiguity
from variable access resolve.
This commit covers object vs companion member vs static member case
in situation with only one companion in the scope.
K1 reports UNRESOLVED_REFERENCE here, probably due to ambiguity.
About K2, while resolving Some.foo it first tries to resolve Some
as a "general" variable access, and gets only some2/Some
because it has a companion. Then it tries to resolve Some as a qualifier,
but here we have an ambiguity, so finally Some with companion is preferred.
Again, both frontends here ignored classifiers from
explicit star imported scope (some.HashMap, java.util.HashMap)
because of their ambiguity. In case of K2, it works so due to logic
in BodyResolveComponents.resolveRootPartOfQualifier.
This function is called to resolve qualifier without receiver.
See also cases (3) and (7).
In this test, things work in the similar way as in constructors case (2).
K1 resolves the explicit receiver HashMap<String, String>()
to kotlin.collections.HashMap /* = java.util.HashMap */.
K2 does the similar, but fun processConstructors from ConstructorProcessing.kt
makes a type alias substitution, so in fact constructor of expanded
java.util.HashMap is processed.
Pay attention that both frontends ignore some.HashMap and java.util.HashMap
due to ambiguous classifiers in explicit star importing scope.
See FirScope.processConstructorsByName in ConstructorProcessing.kt
Again, both frontends here ignored classifiers from
explicit star imported scope (some.HashMap, java.util.HashMap)
because of their ambiguity. In case of K2, it works so due to logic
in BodyResolveComponents.resolveRootPartOfQualifier.
This function is called to resolve qualifier without receiver
Again, both frontends here ignored classifiers from
explicit star imported scope (some.HashMap, java.util.HashMap)
because of their ambiguity. In case of K2, it works so due to logic
in BodyResolveComponents.resolveRootPartOfQualifier.
This function is called to resolve qualifier without receiver, in case
it's used as a receiver itself (::class counts as a selector equivalent).
In both these situations, we have some.HashMap & java.util.HashMap
from explicit star importing scope, and kotlin.collections.HashMap
from implicit star importing scope after it.
K1 ignores both explicitly imported classifiers due to their ambiguity,
and then resolves to kotlin.collections.HashMap at the next level.
In contrast, K2 takes explicitly imported classifiers and
properly reports ambiguity.
In this test, both frontends resolve to fun Semaphore.
Both work this way because interface/class Semaphore classifiers are
clashed (ambiguity) and ignored.
K2 reports ambiguity for some similar cases,
but constructor resolve still ignores ambiguous classifiers when found.
(see FirScope.processConstructorsByName in ConstructorProcessing.kt)
In this test, K1 resolves to kotlin.collections.HashMap /* = java.util.HashMap */
K2 does the similar, but fun processConstructors from ConstructorProcessing.kt
makes a type alias substitution, so in fact constructor of expanded
java.util.HashMap is processed.
Pay attention that both frontends ignore some.HashMap and java.util.HashMap
due to ambiguous classifiers in explicit star importing scope.
See FirScope.processConstructorsByName in ConstructorProcessing.kt
This commit does two things:
- prioritize type parameter scopes against static scopes in body resolve
(effectively it's a revert of KT-58028 fix)
- consider type parameters as inapplicable callable, so during callable
resolve we can go up the tower and still resolve to static scope
This allows both KT-58028 and KT-63377 to work properly
#KT-63377 Fixed
In this commit we now require a class-like symbol
(and not a more general classifier symbol) whenever possible.
Exceptional situation with a type parameter is now handled
in Synthetics.kt
Related to KT-63569
In certain situations like constructor calls, it's possible
to have different WasExperimental/SinceKotlin pairs associated
with one use-site, e.g. a constructor call is associated both
with a constructor declaration and a class declaration.
However, looks like it make no sense to handle this situation
in FirSinceKotlinHelpers, because FirOptInUsageBaseChecker already
handles them.
#KT-59825 Fixed
This commit handles situations when some annotation in deserialized code
has an empty array literal argument [] or even non-empty [something].
Before this commit, we tried to guess a type of this array by "resolving"
the relevant annotation class and looking into the corresponding
parameter. Sometimes it can work, but also it can provoke recursive
resolve e.g. when the annotation class is a nested class in the same scope.
In this commit we changed the behavior in the following way:
- first, for non-empty array literals in deserialized code we just
take the array type from the corresponding array literal element
- second, for empty array literals we no more try to "guess" anything.
Instead we approximate array type as Array<Any>, and later at FIR2IR
stage we use the corresponding parameter type instead. At FIR2IR stage,
everything is already resolved and problems with recursions are no more
possible.
#KT-62598 Fixed
Before this commit, we first tried to guess a type of array literal
in deserialized annotation (it's a strange heuristics which can
lead to SOE and maybe not needed at all, see KT-62598, KT-62929),
and then, if unsuccessful, took the type from the first literal element,
if any. Since the second heuristic is much more clear, safe, and
understandable, in this commit they were swapped.
This commit does not fix KT-62598 in general case,
but decreases a set of cases when it can occur to
empty array literals only.
See the commented line at the end of the added test.
In previous commit (K2: prefer derived class sources...)
we changed default source for callable copy (e.g. substitution override)
to its owner class. This can create an unexpected situation in LL API,
because normally KtCallableDeclaration is expected to be a source.
This commit introduces "compensation" on analysis API side.
Before this commit, test data for 'synthesizedDataClassMembers' test
was different between PSI and LT, because we had SYNTHETIC_OFFSET = -2
for synthetic functions and NaiveSourceBasedFileEntryImpl calculated
line/column as 0 for LT. In this commit the dumper was edited to
count -1 as line -1 / column -1 independent of a file entry used.
After this commit there are three different versions of
IR source range tests: classic (K1), FIR/PSI (K2), FIR/LT (K2).
Since 5 tests behave differently for FIR/PSI and FIR/LT,
in this commit their test data was set to FIR/LT state,
so relevant 5 tests are failing for FIR/PSI right now.
They will be fixed in two subsequent commits
Related to KT-59864, KT-60111, KT-59584
Mikhail Glukhikh