Delete dependsOn support #2876
Delete dependsOn support #2876
Conversation
|
@swift-ci test |
| @_expose(wasm, "swift_wasm_macro_v1_pump") | ||
| @_expose(wasm,"swift_wasm_macro_v1_pump") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume this will cause formatting verification to fail.
| return self.as(LifetimeTypeSpecifierSyntax.self)! | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| public typealias Element = SimpleTypeSpecifierSyntax |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an API-breaking change because clients might be switching over the element enum and using the simpleTypeSpecifier case to extract the value. It’s a little unfortunate that we did release swift-syntax 600 with TypeSpecifierListSyntax.Element as a SyntaxChildChoices and now need to undo it again.
@rintaro @hamishknight @bnbarham Do you think we should take the API breakage again or should we somehow keep Element: SyntaxChildChoices even if it only has a single case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rintaro and I just discussed this and decided that what you did, ie. having a SyntacChildChoices with a single element, here is the best choice. It is one less API break and set us up in case we want to add type specifiers with detail in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I mixed up what we wanted and what we have here. TypeSpecifierListSyntax. Element should continue being a SyntaxChildChoices enum, just with a single case and not change to SimpleTypeSpecifierSyntax in order to maintain API compatibility.
meg-gupta
force-pushed
the
deletedependson
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a4e9fe3 to
8f28526
Compare
|
@swift-ci test |
meg-gupta
force-pushed
the
deletedependson
branch
from
8f28526 to
46af7cc
Compare
|
Please test with following pull request: @swift-ci smoke test |
meg-gupta
force-pushed
the
deletedependson
branch
2 times, most recently
from
9d26294 to
b67aa15
Compare
|
Please test with following pull request: @swift-ci smoke test |
meg-gupta
force-pushed
the
deletedependson
branch
from
b67aa15 to
fd2b935
Compare
|
@swift-ci test |
meg-gupta
force-pushed
the
deletedependson
branch
from
fd2b935 to
5e76f09
Compare
When elementChoices of a Node has a single syntax node as a choice, it's `Element` type is of that syntax node type. Add a flag disableSameTypeForUniqueChoice to disable this behavior. This is added for a TypeSpecifier node to avoid the api break from deleting LifetimeTypeSpecifier from its elementChoices.
meg-gupta
force-pushed
the
deletedependson
branch
from
5e76f09 to
783b3c8
Compare
|
@swift-ci test |
|
@swift-ci smoke test windows platform |
| } else if let node = self.collectionNode, node.elementChoices.count == 1, !node.disableSameTypeForUniqueChoice { | ||
| return [] | ||
| } else if let node = self.collectionNode, node.elementChoices.count >= 1 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this can be simplified to
| } else if let node = self.collectionNode, node.elementChoices.count == 1, !node.disableSameTypeForUniqueChoice { | |
| return [] | |
| } else if let node = self.collectionNode, node.elementChoices.count >= 1 { | |
| } else if let node = self.collectionNode, (node.elementChoices.count > 1 || node.disableSameTypeForUniqueChoice) { |
| @@ -55,6 +55,8 @@ public class Node: NodeChoiceConvertible { | |||
| /// function that should be invoked to create this node. | |||
| public let parserFunction: TokenSyntax? | |||
|
|
|||
| public let disableSameTypeForUniqueChoice: Bool | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please correct me if I’m wrong but I think we only support this for syntax collections, right? If so, I think it would be a cleaner design to modify Node.Data.collection to
fileprivate enum SyntaxCollectionElement {
/// The syntax collection can only have a single kind of syntax node as its element.
case singleOption(SyntaxNodeKind)
/// Create a `SyntaxChildChoices` enum for the collection’s elements.
case choices([SyntaxNodeKind])
}
case collection(SyntaxCollectionElement)And with that CollectionNode can gain
var generateSyntaxChoicesEnum: Bool {
switch node.data {
case .layout:
preconditionFailure("NodeLayoutView must wrap a Node with data `.collection`")
case .collection(.singleOption(_)):
return false
case .collection(.choices(_)):
return true
}
} That way we don’t need to repeat the > 1 || disableSameTypeForUniqueChoice check everywhere.
No description provided.