Rename to "expect" and "actual" annotation.
This will be needed in next commit to make it clear that
only expect annotation value needs special handling.
^KTIJ-26700
It was reported because in composite module analysis we have both expect
and actual annotation descriptors, which may differ.
This may lead to bugs in the checker of ACTUAL_ANNOTATIONS_NOT_MATCH_EXPECT
diagnostic.
`fqName` comparison can be safely removed, because we already check
types in `areCompatibleExpectActualTypes`.
Tests:
- typealiasedAnnotation.kt - for annotation use (so it has different
ClassId)
- typealiasedAnnotationAsArgument.kt - when typealiased annotation
used in another annotation as argument
- sourceRetentionAnnotationsWhenTypealias.kt - tests same as
compiler/testData/diagnostics/tests/multiplatform/annotationMatching/sourceRetentionAnnotationsWhenTypealias.kt
No special test added for opt-in, because it's prohibited to have
expect/actual opt-ins by EXPECT_ACTUAL_OPT_IN_ANNOTATION checker.
^KTIJ-26700
In the following scenario, when we search corresponding expect member
for actual `A.B`, we can skip checking compatibility of `B` scope.
```
class A {
class B {
fun foo() {}
}
}
actual typealias AImpl = A
```
This is because:
1. Annotation checker runs no matter if found expect class is compatible
or not.
2. Class always has at most one corresponding `expect` class (unlike for
functions, which may have several overrides), so we are sure that we
found the right member.
^KT-60668
^KT-60936
Will be needed in subsequent commits for the annotation checker.
`findExpectForActual` is not suitable for the checker because
`findExpectForActual` searches expect class with same `ClassId` for
actual class containing current member (see method
`findClassifiersFromModule`), which is:
1. Unnecessary, since we already have expect class in annotation checker
2. Incorrect when class actualized via typealias and `ClassId` is
different.
So, it is needed to extract logic of searching potential expects
for actual member and already known expect class.
^KT-60668
^KT-60936
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
^KT-61163 Fixed
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11599/timeline
They can be safely skiped because we check overridden descriptors
anyway.
IMO, it's a bug that delegated descriptors are copied with default
params. But it's much harder problem, and my IMO can easily be wrong for
some weird reason.
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11039/timeline
Motivation:
- Functions with prefix "are" must return Boolean. And
AbstractExpectActualCompatibilityChecker even already contains some
functions with prefix "are" that return Boolean (e.g.
`areCompatibleCallableVisibilities`,
`areCompatibleSupertypesOneByOne`, etc)
- Unification with functions that are prefixed with "are" and return
Boolean
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, property `hasSourceAnnotationsErased` returns the opposite
to what is stated in name. Invert it both in implementation and on
call site.
^KT-58551
Many errors are reported in stdlib with these annotations
(SinceKotlin, Deprecated, so on).
But having them only on expect is a valid case. E.g. SinceKotlin added
if some old platform-specific API becomes commonized.
^KT-58551
This implementation only checks annotations set on expect/actual
declarations and requires further refinement (e.g. checking of other
annotation targets, class scopes within typealiases).
^KT-58551
Also use TypeSystemContext instead of TypeSystemInferenceExtensionContext
in AbstractExpectActualCompatibilityChecker
This is needed to have an ability to implement ExpectActualMatchingContext
for IR backend. IrTypeSystemContext may operate with type substitutors,
but there is no sense to implement all methods from TypeSystemInferenceExtensionContext
in it
In K1 .isFun is always false for Java classes, so extra check
is added for that. This is not needed for K2, because .isFun is
true for all Java classes. Here it is not necessary to check
that interface has only one method, because such check will be
done in the place where interface implementation is created.
^KT-39362 Fixed
After this commit we:
- preserve Enum.entries synthetic property in tower even in case the bound feature is OFF
- report an error on Enum.entries call in specific checker if the feature is OFF
- give this synthetic property lower priority, no matter feature ON or OFF
#KT-55251 Fixed
It's reported on receivers in extension function calls with stub type,
as such calls can shadow members of finalized stub types causing
change of resolve when corresponding type argument specified explicitly
It works by checking extension receiver during call resolution parts run
That way we can easily detect if we found an extension applicable to
stub receiver and report call diagnostic for it
KT-53739
Let's call builder lambdas (BL) a lambda that has non-fixed input type
projection at the moment of lambda arguments analysis, such lambdas
is a subject to be analyzed with builder inference
Due to bug in constraint system joining algorithm, currently system
of two or more such lambdas may lead to unsound type inference
Diagnostic added here should be reported in case when there are two
BL that shares a common constraint system, while not annotated with
@BuilderInference, as a protection against aforementioned bug
It's reported by ConstraintSystemCompleter when such situation has
occurred during builder inference phase, it is the same place that
decides wherever lambdas is subject to builder inference or not
KT-53740
Roman Efremov