Add InvalidContractError #1824
Merged
Add InvalidContractError #1824
Conversation
This file contains 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
This commit adds a specific parse error which detects upfront non-sensical contract annotations. More precisely, when a bare constant (null, boolean, string, number) or a bare array is used as a contract in a type expression or in an annotation. This will hopefully catch common typo like using `:` instead of `=` when coming from JSON-like languages
jneem
approved these changes
Feb 20, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes #1818
This PR adds a specific parse error which detects upfront nonsensical contract annotations. More precisely, when a bare constant (null, boolean, string, number) or a bare array is used as a contract in a type expression or in an annotation. This will hopefully catch common typo like using
:instead of=when coming from JSON-like languages.The initial design tried to include a bit of context, to print a special note such as "Did you mean to use
=instead of:as in ...." when the error happen in the annotation of a record field definition. However, this wasn't trivial to do, because the error is currently a parsing error which is raised as soon as such an invalid contract appears in a type position. Not doing that and "catching" the error only later for record fields requires to annoyingly change several rule of the grammar (or rather to have specialized ad-hoc version of them just for record fields, which don't raise the error right away but bubble it up).For now this PR is already a good improvement. If we really want to include more context, we can do so at the price of a bit of complexity, or we can also raise the error later in the pipeline, for example during walking/typechecking.