This behavior wasn't intended during KT-15470 coding. I only intended to
prohibit `@get:` target on things different from properties. But I
accidentally prohibited `@property` on things different from properties
too
But it's a bug fix anyway, so let's keep it.
I also re-checked the implementation of KT-15470, I don't see any other
unintentional prohibitions
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
Disabling the language feature is supported,
otherwise there are too many tests that
would need to be updated to account for
K2's inability to do it.
The `ifConstVal.kt` test is deleted,
because now it must also be ignored in K2,
and since it is ignored for both the
frontends, and the ignored backends
include all the target backends, this test
is basically unused.
Note that now both the frontends report
`CONST_VAL_WITH_NON_CONST_INITIALIZER`.
for `condition`.
^KT-55196 Fixed
This prevents `FirConflictsExpressionChecker.kt`
from missing conflicting local functions. It used
to due to inconsistencies in assigning `<local>`,
and this commit makes it a bit more
straightforward.
The change in KtClassTypeQualifierRenderer
prevents `FirOverrideImplementTest.testLocalClass`
from failing in `intellij`. It didn't fail for
callables, because `KtCallableSignatureRenderer`
doesn't try to render packages.
^KT-59186 Fixed
It's possible to write a fix that
would prevent false positives with
this checker, but the core
intuition behind it is invalid.
This checker assumes that it's
enough to only check direct
overriddens, while in reality
even simple `Source` override
functions are not allowed to
contain default values, so they
can't be used to make judgements
about them.
^KT-59408 Open
^KT-59408 Open
^KT-61095 Fixed
^KT-61165 Fixed
^KT-61029 Fixed
^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.
Added a new FIR based checker for both FINITE_BOUNDS_VIOLATION and
FINITE_BOUNDS_VIOLATION_IN_JAVA errors. Implementation copied from the
existing descriptor based checker with some minor changes.
#KT-59378 Fixed
Let ConeCompositeConflictResolver pass the results of the previous
resolver to the next one.
Otherwise, we get false positive conflicts when a set of candidates
can't be fully reduced by one resolver but could be resolved by the
subsequent application of multiple ones.
This change makes ConeCompositeConflictResolver order-dependent and
thus, ConeOverloadConflictResolver must be invoked last, because it
must work on a pre-filtered list.
Also, let ConeEquivalentCallConflictResolver use
FirStandardOverrideChecker instead of compareCallsByUsedArguments
because it's stricter.
This all fixes a false positive overload resolution ambiguity in common
metadata compilation that is caused by stdlib using the new KMP
format.
Now stdlib metadata is in the classpath, and so declarations from the
stdlib are returned from both MetadataSymbolProvider and
KlibBasedSymbolProvider.
This isn't a problem per se because duplicate candidates are filtered
out by ConeEquivalentCallConflictResolver (K1 works analogously), but
in the case of top-level functions with generic receivers like
Collection<T>.toTypedArray, the check failed because of the direct
comparison of receiver types.
#KT-60943 Fixed
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11039/timeline
For StrongIncompatible `actual` declaration is considered as overload
and error reports on expected declaration. For WeakIncompatible the
error is reported straight away
Before the refactoring `areCompatibleClassScopes` returned just
`Incompatible`. It is bad because StrongIncompatible isn't possible for
classes (classes can't be overloaded). Now all class incompatibilities
are weak.
The commit has a minor impact on observable behavior (cases where we
reported the compilation problems are still reported but on another
elements):
- We no longer report type parameter class incompatibilities on expect
declaration, we report them only on actuals (it happened because all
WeakIncompatible are reported only on actuals)
- In a sense, Java implicit actualization was the only way to "overload"
classes (it would be a redeclaration compilation problem, so it
doesn't count as a valid "overload"). And since type parameters
incompatibility was StrongIncompatible for classes, we counted them as
"overloads" and didn't report incompatibility problems on Kotlin
class. Now we do report. (see
implicitJavaActualization_multipleActuals)
^KT-60902 Fixed
Review: https://jetbrains.team/p/kt/reviews/11039/timeline
We should prioritize to return STRONG incompatibilities over WEAK
incompatibilities. But this invariant broke in `areCompatibleCallables`,
because `areCompatibleTypeParameters` returns incompatibilities of both
types, and `areCompatibleTypeParameters` is called in WEAK
incompatibilities section.
The fix is to split `areCompatibleTypeParameters` into two functions:
`areStrongIncompatibleTypeParameters` and
`areWeakIncompatibleTypeParameters`. And call each of this function in
appropriate `areCompatibleCallables` sections.
^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)
Nikolay Lunyak