Dataflow: Propagate provenance correctly for flow-through wrappers. #17108
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
aschackmull
added
the
no-change-note-required
aschackmull
force-pushed
the
dataflow/flowthrough-provenance
branch
from
e15fc3e to
9724516
Compare
owen-mc
approved these changes
Jul 31, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I expect this to mostly affect edges that have a corresponding subpaths-tuple, so it won't have much effect on the actual path explanations, but if you somehow provide a modeled library function with through-flow as a call-back argument to another library function, which then results in a combined through-flow, then it could be relevant.
In any case, it's a small correctness bug that's easy to fix. And we should see plenty of test coverage of this in the recorded
edgesrelations in qltests.