Fix failing assertion in compose encoding #1293
Closed
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
Signed-off-by: Brian H <brian.hardock@fermyon.com>
|
Hm interesting! Before merging I think I'd like to dig in a bit more here to see if I can't bottom this out a bit more. Do you have a reproduction I could poke around at to trigger this? |
|
@alexcrichton Testing with: https://github.com/fermyon/http-auth-middleware/ Using: To reproduce: |
alexcrichton
added a commit
to alexcrichton/wasm-tools
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 16, 2023
This commit goes back to some comments I had on bytecodealliance#1261 where an assertion was loosened there. My requested modifications ended up spawning bytecodealliance#1293 so I've taken another look at this assertion to try to determine what's going on. I've managed to re-tighten the assertion while fixing the situation coming up in bytecodealliance#1293 as well. The fix in this PR is to restructure the `_ty` method to iterate over the alias chain once and only define the type at the very end which should fix this for resources. I'm still having a difficult time fully explaining everything involved here but this feels like a more appropriate structure for the code at this time anyway.
|
Ok thanks! I came up with #1297 which ends up tightening the assertion here though some slight restructuring of the code. I've tested that the example you gave gets composed with that change as well. I suspect there may still be an issue lurking but I don't know of any off the top of my head at this time |
|
Closing in favor of #1297 |
alexcrichton
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 16, 2023
This commit goes back to some comments I had on #1261 where an assertion was loosened there. My requested modifications ended up spawning #1293 so I've taken another look at this assertion to try to determine what's going on. I've managed to re-tighten the assertion while fixing the situation coming up in #1293 as well. The fix in this PR is to restructure the `_ty` method to iterate over the alias chain once and only define the type at the very end which should fix this for resources. I'm still having a difficult time fully explaining everything involved here but this feels like a more appropriate structure for the code at this time anyway.
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.
This assertion was expanded while addressing the final feedback in the PR to Implement Resources in Compose.
Currently, with the expanded assertion, when composing a component that exports
wasi:http/incoming-handlerwith another that imports it, the assertion fails with:thread 'main' panicked at 'assertion failed: prev.is_none() ||\n (matches!(id, ComponentAnyTypeId :: Resource(_)) && prev == Some(value))And specifically the condition that fails
prev == Some(value)where, in this particular instance,prev=Some(5)!=value=6.I'm not entirely sure of the "why" here but have confirmed that reverting to the old assertion seems to "correct" this.