Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Fix Issue 7337 - subclasses without invariants don't check baseclass … #14304

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fix Issue 7337 - subclasses without invariants don't check baseclass … #14304

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

RazvanN7
Copy link
Contributor

…invariant after method

@dlang-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @RazvanN7! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

  • My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
  • My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
  • I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
  • New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Auto-close Bugzilla Severity Description
✓ 7337 critical subclasses without invariants don't check basisclass invariant after method

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub run digger -- build "stable + dmd#14304"

ghost
ghost reviewed Jul 15, 2022
View reviewed changes
src/dmd/func.d
@@ -1877,7 +1877,7 @@ extern (C++) class FuncDeclaration : Declaration
{
auto ad = isThis();
ClassDeclaration cd = ad ? ad.isClassDeclaration() : null;
return (ad && !(cd && cd.isCPPclass()) && ad.inv && global.params.useInvariants == CHECKENABLE.on && (visibility.kind == Visibility.Kind.protected_ || visibility.kind == Visibility.Kind.public_ || visibility.kind == Visibility.Kind.export_) && !this.isNaked());
return (ad && !(cd && cd.isCPPclass()) && global.params.useInvariants == CHECKENABLE.on && (visibility.kind == Visibility.Kind.protected_ || visibility.kind == Visibility.Kind.public_ || visibility.kind == Visibility.Kind.export_) && !this.isNaked());
Copy link

@ghost ghost Jul 15, 2022 •
edited by ghost

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd use an imutable or-ed of the three Visibility.Kind values and inclusion test to make that LOC smaller

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, but I usually don't mix refactorings with bug fixes. This can be addressed in a subsequent PR.

@RazvanN7 RazvanN7 closed this Sep 5, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Bug Fix stable-stalled
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
2 participants
@RazvanN7 @dlang-bot