Test plan for "field keyword in properties"

[jcouv]

Championed proposal: dotnet/csharplang#140
Spec: proposals/field-keyword.md

public string PropertyConstraint
{
    get;
    set => field = value ?? throw new ArgumentNullException();
} = "";

Compiler:

• language version
• field keyword
  • based on language version
  • as primary_expression only
  • escaped with @
  • this.field, base.field, Qualifier.field
  • in simple property: object P => expr;
  • in property accessors: expression body; block body
  • in indexer accessors
  • in event accessors
  • in nested lambdas and local functions
  • in property initializer
  • in attributes on property, accessor, nested function
  • in nested function signature as default value
  • in nameof()
  • in call to [Conditional]
• warning when previously binding to other symbol
  • based on language version
  • member of containing type, base type
  • local, in same or nested function
  • parameter in nested function
  • type parameter, in containing type or nested function
• mixed auto- and manually-implemented accessors (see FieldKeywordTests.ImplicitAccessorBody_*)
  • get, set, init
  • in interface
• field use
  • static and instance properties on class, struct, ref struct, interface, record*
  • get-only, set-only, init-only (see FieldKeywordTests.AutoPropertyMustHaveGetAccessor_*)
  • field references in multiple properties: each get private backing field
  • auto-implemented properties (including field) must override all accessors (see FieldKeywordTests.Override_*, New_*)
  • in nested function, including static field reference in static function (see FieldKeywordTests.Lambda_*, LocalFunction_*)
  • in attribute arguments (see FieldKeywordTests.Attribute_*)
  • ref returning property (see FieldKeywordTests.RefReturning_*)
  • properties with restricted types (see FieldKeywordTests.RestrictedTypes)
  • properties with by-ref-like types (see FieldKeywordTests.ByRefLikeType_*)
  • @field with and without backing field
  • Color Color
• synthesized backing field
  • backing field emitted when any auto-implemented accessor or field reference
  • backing field marked [CompilerGenerated] (see FieldKeywordTests.Attribute_03)
  • emitted when used in [Conditional] code only (see FieldKeywordTests.Conditional) (see open LDM question)

        object P { set { Debug.Assert(field is null); } }

  • emitted to ref assembly
• [field:] attributes
  • emitted on synthesized backing field (see FieldKeywordTests.Attribute_03)
  • not emitted on property
  • error if no auto-implemented accessors and no field references (see FieldKeywordTests.PartialProperty_Attribute_03)
  • [field: Obsolete]
• nameof(field)
  • nameof(field) as invocation
• property initializer (see FieldKeywordTests.Initializer_*)
  • allowed when any auto-implemented accessor or field reference
  • static and instance properties on class, struct, ref struct, interface
  • written to field directly
• constructor assignment (see FieldKeywordTests.ConstructorAssignment_*)
  • assigns to setter if available, otherwise getter
  • static and instance properties on class, struct, ref struct, interface
  • assigned in other initializer
  • assigned in nested function
• flow analysis
  • warning CS0414: The field is assigned but its value is never used
  • warning CS0649: Field is never assigned to, and will always have its default value
  • auto-default initialization of struct backing fields and warnings when property is accessed in constructor (see FieldKeywordTests.DefaultInitialization_*)
    • expect no auto-default inserted when a field initializer is used
    • expect an auto-default when assigning in constructor
• readonly properties (see FieldKeywordTests.ReadOnly_*)
  • backing field is initonly when type, property, or accessor is readonly
  • error reporting when modifying field in get, set accessors
• set accessor in readonly context for property using field (see open LDM question)
• partial properties (see FieldKeywordTests.PartialProperty_*)
  • mix of auto- and manually-implemented accessors
  • static and instance properties on class, struct, ref struct, interface, record*
  • field in accessors
  • initializer on definition or implementation
  • initializer on definition and implementation with same or different values
  • initializer with no field or auto-implementation
  • field references on definition or implementation
  • field references on definition and implementation
  • field references on readonly property or accessor with same or different modifiers on parts
  • [field:] attributes concatenated across parts
    • error when the attributes are the same and AllowMultiple=false
  • partial properties where the implementation uses field and one or both parts have field: targeted attribute lists. (See also PartialPropertiesTests.Attributes_Property_BackingField. This issue referenced in source.)
  • Check warning WRN_SequentialOnPartialClass is produced when needed (see also comment)
  • comment from partial properties
  • comment from partial properties
• nullability (initial implementation) (see FieldKeywordTests.Nullability_*)
  • field has annotations of containing type
  • [field:MaybeNull] etc. affect field
• SemanticModel
  • GetSymbolInfo(fieldExpr) returns backing field
  • field in the speculative model does not bind to a backing field if the original location does not have a backing field
  • IOperation for expression referencing field
• struct fulfills unmanaged constraint and managed type rules (see pointer types) depending on synthesized fields
• ref safety:

  struct S
  {
      [UnscopedRef]
      Span<int> Prop1 => M(ref field); // should not error
  
      // Should error
      Span<int> Prop2 => M(ref field); // should error
    
      static Span<int> M(ref Span<int> span) => default;
  }

• public API review: [API proposal] Syntax changes for field keyword #74937
• update compiler test plan

Productivity:

• Fixer for compat break
• QuickInfo
• Completion
• Colorization
• Conversion?
• F1 help on field
• EnC

[CyrusNajmabadi]

Moving to 17.2. The work for thsi hasn't gotten merged in yet anyways.

[Youssef1313]

Note to self: The following properties for SynthesizedBackingFieldSymbol needs to be revised:

• DeclaringSyntaxReferences (should it remain empty or return the first usage of field keyword?)
• IsImplicitlyDeclared (should it always return true or return false for field-keyword backing fields?)

[Youssef1313]

There are interesting scenarios around overriding virtual properties.

public class Base
{
    public virtual int P1 { get; set; }
    public virtual int P2 { get; set; }
    public virtual int P3 { get; set; }
    public virtual int P4 { get; set; }
    public virtual int P5 { get; set; }

    public virtual int P6 { get => 0; set { } }
}

public class Derived : Base
{
    // no error.
    public override int P1 { get => 0; }
    
    // This produces Auto-implemented properties must have get accessors.
    // However, per the spec updates, a set-only with semicolon is allowed.
    // Should this now produce an error similar to ERR_AutoPropertyMustOverrideSet?
    public override int P2 { set; }

    // This synthesizes a sealed setter. Make sure we have this behavior for semi-auto.
    public sealed override int P3 { get => 0; }

    // Auto-implemented properties must override all accessors of the overridden property.
    public override int P4 { get; }

    // Will this be allowed? It's not allowed for old-style auto properties (see P4).
    public override int P5 { get => field; }

    public override int P6 { get => field; }

    public Derived()
    {
        // P6 looks like a property that's assignable through backing field.
        // But this shouldn't be the case due to the inherited setter.
        // We should use 'GetOwnOrInheritedSetMethod' for the logic of assignability through backing field.
        // Add a test to confirm that.
        P6 = 10;
    }
}

Do these scenarios have clear answer as to what's the expected behavior? Are there any that needs to be discussed in LDM?

cc @AlekseyTs @333fred @CyrusNajmabadi

[AlekseyTs]

per the spec updates, a set-only with semicolon is allowed.

Could you add a quote from the relevant portion of the spec?

Should this now produce an error similar to ERR_AutoPropertyMustOverrideSet?

Please include exact wording of the message.

// Will this be allowed? It's not allowed for old-style auto properties (see P4).

We probably should treat this as a property with a user provided body. Presence of the field keyword probably shouldn't make any difference.

[AlekseyTs]

@Youssef1313 BTW, consider not "polluting" the Test Plan issue with "random" discussions. Open a separate issue for each specific question.