Allowed non-this, non-super code before super call in derived classes with property initializers #29374
+5,561
−317
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Fixes microsoft#8277. It feels wrong to put a new `forEachChild` loop in the checker, though in the vast majority of user files this will be a very quick one. Is there a better way to check for a reference to `super` or `this`?
ajafff
suggested changes
Jan 11, 2019
ajafff
suggested changes
Jan 11, 2019
|
ajafff
reviewed
Jan 11, 2019
JoshuaKGoldberg
reviewed
Jan 12, 2019
tests/baselines/reference/derivedClassSuperProperties.errors.txt
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…boundaries
```ts
function () {
return this;
}
```
It was immediately going to `ts.forEachChild` so the statement itself wasn't being counted as a new `this` scope.
ajafff
suggested changes
Jan 12, 2019
This is getting very complex very fast. I wonder if there's an easier way using the control flow graph?
ajafff
reviewed
Jan 12, 2019
JoshuaKGoldberg
reviewed
Jan 14, 2019
tests/baselines/reference/derivedClassSuperProperties.errors.txt
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
As per discussion in the issue, it would be ideal to consider any block that always ends up calling to super() the equivalent of a root-level super() statement. This would be valid:
```ts
foo = 1;
constructor() {
condition() ? super(1) : super(0);
this.foo;
}
```
...as it would compile to the equivalent of:
```ts
function () {
condition() ? super(1) : super(0);
this.foo = 1;
this.foo;
}
That change would a bit more intense and I'm very timid, so leaving it out of this PR. In the meantime the requirement is that the super() statement must itself be root-level.
ajafff
suggested changes
Jan 18, 2019
|
cc @ahejlsberg for review |
|
Ping @ahejlsberg - is there anything that needs to be done here? It'd be nice to have this in |
|
Correction: ping, @weswigham? |
|
Heya @rbuckton, I've started to run the perf test suite on this PR at 39d9901. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
|
@rbuckton Here they are:Comparison Report - main..29374
System
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@rbuckton Is there anything else that @JoshuaKGoldberg can do to move this forward? |
|
@typescript-bot user test this inline |
Nope, it looks ready to go actually, and just in time for 4.6 beta. |
rbuckton
approved these changes
Jan 14, 2022
|
Fantastic, thanks so much for the reviews & merge @rbuckton! If any issues come out of this change I'm available to try to fix, if that's helpful. |
|
The longest-living PR I have ever seen. |
|
YES!!! Thank you! |
|
|
5 tasks
|
Amazing work and perseverance. Awesome! |
|
Man! Awesome. The perseverance! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Starts on #8277 by allowing the non-
this, non-supercode to be root-level statements in the constructor. This will now be allowed:It feels wrong to put a newforEachChildloop in the checker, though in the vast majority of user files this will be a very quick one. Is there a better way to check for a reference tosuperorthis?Edit 2/28/2020: I've
✔️
mostlyresolved the merge conflicts introduced by both#private fields &useDefineForClassFields, but I'm not confident my approach is still a valid one. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could confirm I'm on the right track!Oh, andgulp runtestspasses locally (on Windows). I'll try a Mac to see if there's some odd encoding/whitespace behavior with the failing test...Edit 3/11/2021: It seems this is fairly close to merging.
Edit 1/13/2022: I bought this PR a birthday cake for its third birthday. https://twitter.com/JoshuaKGoldberg/status/1481654056422567944