Add nullability matchers with Kotlin Contracts (#602) #646
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
With Kotlin Contracts it's possible to establish that "If this function passes, X is true". This commit implements nullability type matchers for the `Any?` type, using Contracts to allow non-null inference to users. This commit didn't implement the same logic for matchers such as `x.shouldBeInstanceOf<Foo>()`, because currently it's impossible to implement this with Kotlin Contracts. https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-28298 Fixes #601
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Bringing it from parallel branch
With Kotlin Contracts it's possible to establish that "If this function passes, X is true". This commit implements nullability type matchers for the
Any?type, using Contracts to allow non-null inference to users.This commit didn't implement the same logic for matchers such as
x.shouldBeInstanceOf<Foo>(), because currently it's impossible to implement this with Kotlin Contracts. https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-28298Fixes #601