refactor(ast)!: rename is_strict methods to has_use_strict_directive#7783
Merged
graphite-app[bot] merged 1 commit intomainfrom Dec 11, 2024
Conversation
Contributor
Your org has enabled the Graphite merge queue for merging into mainAdd the label “0-merge” to the PR and Graphite will automatically add it to the merge queue when it’s ready to merge. Or use the label “hotfix” to add to the merge queue as a hot fix. You must have a Graphite account and log in to Graphite in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link. |
Member
Author
github-actions
bot
added
A-semantic
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #7783 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
overlookmotel
force-pushed
the
12-10-refactor_ast_rename_is_strict_methods_to_has_use_strict_directive_
branch
from
b7612a3 to
b09ef48
Compare
This was referenced Dec 10, 2024
Contributor
Merge activity
|
…ve` (#7783) The name `is_strict` was misleading for these methods, because it doesn't tell you if the e.g. function *is* strict mode, only whether it contains a `"use strict"` directive. `Function::is_strict` might return `false` for a function which does have strict mode semantics because it's e.g. in an ESM file. Rename these methods to `has_use_strict_directive` to better reflect what they do. For `Program`, change the method to only check for `"use strict"` directive and not to look at `source_type`. `Semantic` should be the source of truth on strict/sloppy mode of AST nodes. It's cheaper to look up the `ScopeFlags` than to iterate over `directives`, so don't encourage this anti-pattern by providing a "rival" method.
Dunqing
force-pushed
the
12-10-refactor_ast_rename_is_strict_methods_to_has_use_strict_directive_
branch
from
b09ef48 to
96a26d3
Compare
graphite-app
bot
deleted the
12-10-refactor_ast_rename_is_strict_methods_to_has_use_strict_directive_
branch
Boshen
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 13, 2024
## [0.41.0] - 2024-12-13 - fb325dc ast: [**BREAKING**] `span` field must be the first element (#7821) (Boshen) - 96a26d3 ast: [**BREAKING**] Rename `is_strict` methods to `has_use_strict_directive` (#7783) (overlookmotel) ### Features - 8991f33 ast: Add `visit_span` to `Visit` and `VisitMut` (#7816) (overlookmotel) - f7900ab ast: Add `ArrowFunctionExpression::has_use_strict_directive` method (#7784) (overlookmotel) - e727ae9 transformer/class-properties: Transform super member expressions that are inside static prop initializer (#7815) (Dunqing) ### Bug Fixes - 7610dc1 parser: Parse `import source from 'mod'` (#7833) (Boshen) - 9479e2b semantic: Missing references when `export {}` references a type-only binding and a normal (#7812) (Yunfei He) - 7a83230 semantic: Missing reference when `export default` references a type alias binding (#7813) (Dunqing) - 4a3bca8 semantic: Fix identifying strict mode arrow functions (#7785) (overlookmotel) - 5b7e1ad transformer: Remove span of define value (#7811) (Hiroshi Ogawa) - 14896cb transformer/class-properties: Create temp vars in correct scope (#7824) (overlookmotel) - 25bb6da transformer/class-properties: Fix `ScopeId`s in instance prop initializers (#7823) (overlookmotel) - 65b109a transformer/class-properties: No `raw` for generated `StringLiteral` (#7825) (overlookmotel) - 2964a61 transformer/class-properties: Unwrap failed when private field expression doesn't contain optional expression in `ChainExpression` (#7798) (Dunqing) - 6fa6785 transformer/class-properties: Panic when the callee or member is `ParenthesisExpression` or TS-syntax expressions. (#7795) (Dunqing) - bb22c67 transformer/class-properties: Fix `ScopeId`s in static prop initializers (#7791) (overlookmotel) - caa57f1 transformer/class-properties: Fix scope flags in static prop initializers (#7786) (overlookmotel) ### Performance - 4448b63 codegen: Faster writing indentation (#7820) (overlookmotel) - afaaffa codegen: Fast path for `options.print_comments()` (#7806) (Boshen) ### Refactor - 0f367e5 semantic: Improve the logic of resolving references to be cleaner (#7829) (Dunqing) - 5710950 semantic: Move export-related reference flags logic to visit functions (#7828) (Dunqing) - b290ebd transformer: Handle `<CWD>` in test runner (#7799) (Dunqing) - e70deb9 transformer/class-properties: Locate instance props insertion location in separate step (#7819) (overlookmotel) - afc5f1e transformer/class-properties: De-deduplicate code (#7805) (overlookmotel) - 47a91d2 transformer/class-properties: Shorten code (#7804) (overlookmotel) - 54ef2b9 transformer/class-properties: Rename `debug_assert_expr_is_not_parenthesis_or_typescript_syntax` (#7803) (overlookmotel) - 3cdc47c transformer/class-properties: `#[inline(always)]` on `assert_expr_neither_parenthesis_nor_typescript_syntax` (#7802) (overlookmotel) ### Testing - d72c888 transformer/replace-global-defines: Remove panicking test (#7838) (overlookmotel) Co-authored-by: Boshen <1430279+Boshen@users.noreply.github.com>
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
The name
is_strictwas misleading for these methods, because it doesn't tell you if the e.g. function is strict mode, only whether it contains a"use strict"directive.Function::is_strictmight returnfalsefor a function which does have strict mode semantics because it's e.g. in an ESM file.Rename these methods to
has_use_strict_directiveto better reflect what they do.For
Program, change the method to only check for"use strict"directive and not to look atsource_type.Semanticshould be the source of truth on strict/sloppy mode of AST nodes. It's cheaper to look up theScopeFlagsthan to iterate overdirectives, so don't encourage this anti-pattern by providing a "rival" method.