Sergej Jaskiewicz
6e8283a6fe
The reason #1 for this feature is that we want to test IdSignatures generated for declarations. Currently, there is no (easy) way to ensure that a change in the signature building logic doesn't cause any breaking changes wrt klibs. Now, most IdSignatures include hashed mangled names in them, so even if we catch a regression where the included hash changes, there would be no way of knowing immediately what caused it, unless we'd also have mangled names in the expectations. The reason #2 is to test the manglers themselves. Currently, there are no tests for them. They heavily duplicate each other, this is already causing issues (see KT-57427) that would be very hard to catch without these tests. ^KT-58238 Fixed
53 lines
935 B
Kotlin
Vendored
53 lines
935 B
Kotlin
Vendored
// TARGET_BACKEND: JVM
|
|
|
|
// MUTE_SIGNATURE_COMPARISON_K2: ANY
|
|
// ^ KT-57788
|
|
|
|
// FILE: implicitNotNullOnDelegatedImplementation.kt
|
|
interface IFoo {
|
|
fun foo(): String
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
class K1 : JFoo()
|
|
|
|
class K2 : JFoo() {
|
|
override fun foo() = super.foo()
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
class K3 : JUnrelatedFoo(), IFoo
|
|
|
|
class K4 : JUnrelatedFoo(), IFoo {
|
|
override fun foo() = super.foo()
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
class TestJFoo : IFoo by JFoo() {
|
|
// nullability assertion in 'foo()'
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
class TestK1 : IFoo by K1() {
|
|
// nullability assertion in 'foo()'
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
class TestK2 : IFoo by K2() {
|
|
// no nullability assertion in 'foo()'
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
class TestK3 : IFoo by K3() {
|
|
// no nullability assertion in 'foo()'
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
class TestK4 : IFoo by K4() {
|
|
// nullability assertion in 'foo()'
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
// FILE: JFoo.java
|
|
public class JFoo implements IFoo {
|
|
public String foo() { return null; }
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// FILE: JUnrelatedFoo.java
|
|
public class JUnrelatedFoo {
|
|
public String foo() { return null; }
|
|
}
|