Skip to content

[Frontend] Rename NonIsolatedAsyncInheritsIsolationFromContext feature and add a feature for @execution - #79508

Merged
xedin merged 2 commits into
swiftlang:mainfrom
xedin:feature-proof-execution-attrs
Feb 21, 2025
Merged

xedin merged 2 commits into
swiftlang:mainfrom
xedin:feature-proof-execution-attrs

Conversation

@xedin

@xedin xedin commented Feb 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
  • NonIsolatedAsyncInheritsIsolationFromContext -> AsyncCallerExecution
  • Hide @execution attribute behind an experimental feature ExecutionAttribute

… feature

New name is `AsyncCallerExecution` as stated by the proposal.
@xedin

xedin commented Feb 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@swift-ci please test

@xedin
xedin requested a review from gottesmm February 20, 2025 04:04
@xedin
xedin force-pushed the feature-proof-execution-attrs branch from 11336f6 to 735b3c4 Compare February 20, 2025 06:57
@xedin

xedin commented Feb 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@swift-ci please test

… `ExecutionAttribute`

Since the proposal has not been approved yet we cannot expose
`@execution` attribute.
@xedin
xedin force-pushed the feature-proof-execution-attrs branch from 735b3c4 to dd1be8f Compare February 20, 2025 08:05
@xedin

xedin commented Feb 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@swift-ci please test

@xwu

xwu commented Feb 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Can we hold off on renaming the experimental feature flag in the middle of the proposal review period (imminently starting) as we would want users to be able to try it out using the instructions they're given.

@hborla

hborla commented Feb 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Can we hold off on renaming the experimental feature flag in the middle of the proposal review period (imminently starting) as we would want users to be able to try it out using the instructions they're given.

I asked for this change to be made specifically for the review so that there are two separate flags for 1. the additive features and 2. the default change. We should just build a toolchain on this PR.

@hborla

hborla commented Feb 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@swift-ci please build toolchain

@hborla

hborla commented Feb 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@xwu I think it's fine to kick off the review and note that the toolchain will come today - I'll update the thread with the toolchain and the flags once it's built

@xedin

xedin commented Feb 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@swift-ci please build toolchain Windows platform

@xedin

xedin commented Feb 20, 2025 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@xedin

xedin commented Feb 21, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Windows toolchain is failing with an unrelated error:

TestFoundation/TestNSData.swift:466: error: TestNSData.test_base64EncodeDoesNotAddLineSeparatorsWhenStringFitsInLine : XCTAssertEqual failed: ("AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


") is not equal to ("AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA") - each 3 byte is converted into 4 characterss. 48 / 3 * 4 <= 64, therefore result should not have line separator.

TestFoundation/TestNSData.swift:472: error: TestNSData.test_base64EncodeDoesNotAddLineSeparatorsWhenStringFitsInLine : XCTAssertEqual failed: ("AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


") is not equal to ("AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA") - each 3 byte is converted into 4 characterss. 57 / 3 * 4 <= 76, therefore result should not have line separator.

@xedin

xedin commented Feb 21, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@swift-ci please build toolchain windows

@xedin
xedin merged commit 520c05b into swiftlang:main Feb 21, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants