Skip to content

Conversation

@Keno
Copy link
Member

@Keno Keno commented Jan 23, 2026

We were missing handling for the case where the binding that we're using is ambiguous. There are two possible behaviors:

  1. The ambiguous binding gets ignored for the purpose of resolution
  2. The ambiguity poisons and the imported binding is also ambiguous

Current behavior between these two depends on resolution order (which is bad and part of what the assert was complaining about). This decides that case #2 is the correct behavior and fixes #60659.

We were missing handling for the case where the binding that we're
using is ambiguous. There are two possible behaviors:

1. The ambiguous binding gets ignored for the purpose of resolution
2. The ambiguity poisons and the imported binding is also ambiguous

Current behavior between these two depends on resolution order (which
is bad and part of what the assert was complaining about). This decides
that case #2 is the correct behavior and fixes #60659.
@Keno Keno added bugfix This change fixes an existing bug backport 1.12 Change should be backported to release-1.12 backport 1.13 Change should be backported to release-1.13 labels Jan 23, 2026
@Keno Keno merged commit 0f275e3 into master Jan 24, 2026
12 checks passed
@Keno Keno deleted the kf/60659 branch January 24, 2026 15:32
@MRRamyaKrishnan

This comment was marked as spam.

KristofferC pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2026
We were missing handling for the case where the binding that we're using
is ambiguous. There are two possible behaviors:

1. The ambiguous binding gets ignored for the purpose of resolution
2. The ambiguity poisons and the imported binding is also ambiguous

Current behavior between these two depends on resolution order (which is
bad and part of what the assert was complaining about). This decides
that case #2 is the correct behavior and fixes #60659.

(cherry picked from commit 0f275e3)
@KristofferC KristofferC mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2026
43 tasks
KristofferC pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2026
We were missing handling for the case where the binding that we're using
is ambiguous. There are two possible behaviors:

1. The ambiguous binding gets ignored for the purpose of resolution
2. The ambiguity poisons and the imported binding is also ambiguous

Current behavior between these two depends on resolution order (which is
bad and part of what the assert was complaining about). This decides
that case #2 is the correct behavior and fixes #60659.

(cherry picked from commit 0f275e3)
@KristofferC KristofferC mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2026
40 tasks
@KristofferC KristofferC removed backport 1.12 Change should be backported to release-1.12 backport 1.13 Change should be backported to release-1.13 labels Feb 3, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bugfix This change fixes an existing bug

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Many packages fail with julia: /source/src/module.c:107: update_implicit_resolution: Assertion resolution.binding_or_const' failed. on 1.13

3 participants