-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
Fixed parenthesized array literal expressions spread in calls not being tupleized #54623
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
sandersn
merged 1 commit into
microsoft:main
from
Andarist:fix/parenthesized-spreads-in-calls
Jun 29, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While reading the source code today I noticed that
isSpreadIntoCallOrNew
here (as part ofinConstContext
).I think it was semantically incorrect (and I added it here). It didn't exactly create any issues because
isConstContext
here is mainly used to decide if the checked type should be readonly or not.Since I removed part of the condition we can now observe removal of the
readonly
modifier from some snapshot tests. I think it's fine... or at least, I wasn't yet able to prove that those tuples should be readonly. Even in actualconst
contexts etc a mutable array is still fine. Even if it turns out that thereadonly
modifier is needed for some case, I think that it should be added independently, based onisSpreadIntoCallOrNew
.As a bonus, I noticed that parenthesized expressions were not handled here so I improved this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The changed baselines that didn’t strictly need to change make this hard to approve. I’d rather not find out that the
readonly
was important in an untested edge case because of a regression.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should I split this into 2 PRs then? Note that the change that allowed those and introduced those
readonly
modifiers in some cases were only merged into 5.1 so removing it really shouldn't affect many people.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I missed that the same PR originally made them
readonly
. Probably fine then