Partial properties: basic indexer scenarios and signature mismatch diagnostics #73378
Conversation
dotnet-issue-labeler
bot
added
Area-Infrastructure
untriaged
RikkiGibson
force-pushed
the
partial-properties-4
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fcb68d3 to
21a42fa
Compare
RikkiGibson
changed the title
RikkiGibson
force-pushed
the
partial-properties-4
branch
2 times, most recently
from
86d245c to
2737de5
Compare
RikkiGibson
force-pushed
the
partial-properties-4
branch
from
544d124 to
bb86b40
Compare
| @@ -10,6 +10,11 @@ namespace Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Symbols | |||
| { | |||
| internal static class PropertySymbolExtensions | |||
| { | |||
| public static bool IsParams(this PropertySymbol property) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is equivalent to the IsParams extension for methods
| @@ -145,6 +146,12 @@ internal static SourcePropertySymbol Create(SourceMemberContainerTypeSymbol cont | |||
| MessageID.IDS_FeatureAutoPropertyInitializer.CheckFeatureAvailability(diagnostics, initializer.EqualsToken); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| internal override void ForceComplete(SourceLocation? locationOpt, Predicate<Symbol>? filter, CancellationToken cancellationToken) | |||
| { | |||
| PartialImplementationPart?.ForceComplete(locationOpt, filter, cancellationToken); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is equivalent to the ForceComplete declared on ordinary method symbols
src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Symbol/Symbols/PartialPropertiesTests.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| } | ||
|
|
||
| [Fact] | ||
| public void DynamicDifference_IndexerParameter() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some of the added tests exercise the logic added a couple of PRs ago (in MergePartialMembers) but for indexer scenarios. It would be good to go back and cover that logic with indexer scenarios.
For example, scenarios producing diagnostics (ERR_PartialMethodMustHaveLatent, ERR_PartialMethodWithAccessibilityModsMustHaveImplementation, ERR_PartialPropertyMissingImplementation, ...).
There may be a couple more interesting scenarios excercising MemberSignatureComparer.PartialMethodsComparer. For example, we'll merge the parts if the return types differ. And we ignore tuple names.
Consider testing some nested differences too.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| [Fact] | ||
| public void RefKindDifference_IndexerParameter_04() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why aren't we also mixing in vs out/ref and such?
| public partial int this[int x, int y = 1] { get => y; set { } } | ||
|
|
||
| public partial int this[int x, int y, int z = 1] { get; set; } | ||
| public partial int this[int x, int y, int z = 1] { get => z; set { } } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's show consumption for these scenarios.
| // (10,44): warning CS1066: The default value specified for parameter 'y' will have no effect because it applies to a member that is used in contexts that do not allow optional arguments | ||
| // public partial int this[int x = 1, int y = 2] { get => y; set { } } | ||
| Diagnostic(ErrorCode.WRN_DefaultValueForUnconsumedLocation, "y").WithArguments("y").WithLocation(10, 44)); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's also test differing default values: one part has 1, the other has 2, for example. And verify behavior runtime for this scenario if it compiles.
RikkiGibson
merged commit 2722d74
into
dotnet:features/partial-properties
Test plan: #73090
Relevant spec change: dotnet/csharplang#8106