fix: allow accessing members of constant address

[tserg]

What I did

Fix #3258.

How I did it

Remove visit_Hex, which was overriding visit_Constant. This caused the propagated type to be ignored and overriden with the None value.

On an unrelated but similar reasoning, I also removed visit_Int and visit_Bytes.

How to verify it

See tests.

Commit message

fix: allow accessing members of constant address

Description for the changelog

Allow accessing members of constant address

Cute Animal Picture

[tserg]

Is this valid syntax? I think it should be, but trying to figure out the required changes to the lark grammar.

@external
def foo() -> uint256:
    x: uint256 = 0x776Ba14735FF84789320718cf0aa43e91F7A8Ce1.balance
    return x

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #3261 (f4cb780) into master (02339df) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3261      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.88%   88.87%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          84       84              
  Lines       10598    10592       -6     
  Branches     2212     2212              
==========================================
- Hits         9420     9414       -6     
  Misses        769      769              
  Partials      409      409              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
vyper/semantics/analysis/annotation.py	89.26% <ø> (-0.36%)	⬇️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[fubuloubu]

Is this valid syntax? I think it should be, but trying to figure out the required changes to the lark grammar.

@external
def foo() -> uint256:
    x: uint256 = 0x776Ba14735FF84789320718cf0aa43e91F7A8Ce1.balance
    return x

Its not currently valid, no. I think it would rare you would need to use it like this, so I have no problem forcing people to do it a different way

[tserg]

Is this valid syntax? I think it should be, but trying to figure out the required changes to the lark grammar.

@external
def foo() -> uint256:
    x: uint256 = 0x776Ba14735FF84789320718cf0aa43e91F7A8Ce1.balance
    return x

Its not currently valid, no. I think it would rare you would need to use it like this, so I have no problem forcing people to do it a different way

This would fail the grammar test, but would actually compile in 0.3.7 and the latest master branch. It is actually similar to this contract after constant folding.

a: constant(address) = 0x776Ba14735FF84789320718cf0aa43e91F7A8Ce1
@external
def foo() -> uint256:
    x: uint256 = a.balance
    return x