🍒[5.9][Distributed] Report error rather than crash no ad-hoc requirements are implemented #66022
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
hborla
approved these changes
May 19, 2023
|
@swift-ci please test |
ktoso
deleted the
pick-wip-distributed-dont-crash-compile-on-empty-systemush
branch
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description: A "very empty" implementation of a distributed actor system, which is missing all implementations of requirements fails to produce diagnostics but instead crashes on an assertion.
This is because we emit errors on the system, and don't proceed to visit nested types. By doing so, we didn't avoid synthesizing code which requires those not present ad-hoc requirements. Instead of emitting a diagnostic in the nested type we attempt to synthesize and hit assertions along the way. The solution is to check if we're able to synthesize or not more correctly.
Risk: Low, only prevents synthesis in a case where it would have crashed while doing synthesis before.
Review by: @DougGregor
Testing: CI testing
Original PR: #66020
Radar: rdar://108995388