Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix SyntaxGenerator for checked operators #63411

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Apr 10, 2024
Merged

Fix SyntaxGenerator for checked operators #63411

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
4c85db1
Fix SyntaxGenerator for checked operators
Youssef1313 Aug 15, 2022
882f42d
Fix formatting
Youssef1313 Aug 16, 2022
db24193
Fix VB
Youssef1313 Aug 16, 2022
2ed9aba
Apply suggestions from code review
Youssef1313 Aug 17, 2022
b1b0236
Address feedback
Youssef1313 Aug 17, 2022
d111c7a
Refactor per feedback
Youssef1313 Nov 10, 2022
db3c904
File scoped namespaces
CyrusNajmabadi Apr 10, 2024
91df7c1
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into issues/63410
CyrusNajmabadi Apr 10, 2024
a93653d
Fix
CyrusNajmabadi Apr 10, 2024
b1a167c
Simplify
CyrusNajmabadi Apr 10, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
31 changes: 26 additions & 5 deletions src/Workspaces/CSharp/Portable/CodeGeneration/CSharpSyntaxGenerator.cs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -242,6 +242,11 @@ public override SyntaxNode MethodDeclaration(
}

public override SyntaxNode OperatorDeclaration(OperatorKind kind, IEnumerable<SyntaxNode>? parameters = null, SyntaxNode? returnType = null, Accessibility accessibility = Accessibility.NotApplicable, DeclarationModifiers modifiers = default, IEnumerable<SyntaxNode>? statements = null)
{
return OperatorDeclaration((int)GetTokenKind(kind), isChecked: false, parameters, returnType, accessibility, modifiers, statements);
}

private protected override SyntaxNode OperatorDeclaration(int syntaxKind, bool isChecked, IEnumerable<SyntaxNode>? parameters = null, SyntaxNode? returnType = null, Accessibility accessibility = Accessibility.NotApplicable, DeclarationModifiers modifiers = default, IEnumerable<SyntaxNode>? statements = null)
Youssef1313 marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
{
var hasBody = !modifiers.IsAbstract && (!modifiers.IsPartial || statements != null);
var returnTypeNode = returnType != null ? (TypeSyntax)returnType : SyntaxFactory.PredefinedType(SyntaxFactory.Token(SyntaxKind.VoidKeyword));
Expand All @@ -251,23 +256,39 @@ public override SyntaxNode OperatorDeclaration(OperatorKind kind, IEnumerable<Sy
var modifierList = AsModifierList(accessibility, modifiers, SyntaxKind.OperatorDeclaration);
var attributes = default(SyntaxList<AttributeListSyntax>);

if (kind is OperatorKind.ImplicitConversion or OperatorKind.ExplicitConversion)
if ((SyntaxKind)syntaxKind is SyntaxKind.ImplicitKeyword or SyntaxKind.ExplicitKeyword)
{
return SyntaxFactory.ConversionOperatorDeclaration(
attributes, modifierList, SyntaxFactory.Token(GetTokenKind(kind)),
attributes, modifierList, SyntaxFactory.Token((SyntaxKind)syntaxKind),
explicitInterfaceSpecifier: null,
SyntaxFactory.Token(SyntaxKind.OperatorKeyword),
returnTypeNode, parameterList, body, semicolon);
checkedKeyword: isChecked ? SyntaxFactory.Token(SyntaxKind.CheckedKeyword) : default,
returnTypeNode, parameterList, body, expressionBody: null, semicolon);
}
else
{
return SyntaxFactory.OperatorDeclaration(
attributes, modifierList, returnTypeNode,
explicitInterfaceSpecifier: null,
SyntaxFactory.Token(SyntaxKind.OperatorKeyword),
SyntaxFactory.Token(GetTokenKind(kind)),
parameterList, body, semicolon);
checkedKeyword: isChecked ? SyntaxFactory.Token(SyntaxKind.CheckedKeyword) : default,
SyntaxFactory.Token((SyntaxKind)syntaxKind),
parameterList, body, expressionBody: null, semicolon);
}
}

private protected override int GetOperatorSyntaxKind(IMethodSymbol method, out bool isChecked)
{
var operatorKind = CSharp.SyntaxFacts.GetOperatorKind(method.Name);
if (operatorKind == SyntaxKind.None)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Unknown operator kind.");
}

isChecked = method.Name.StartsWith("op_Checked");
Youssef1313 marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
return (int)operatorKind;
}

Youssef1313 marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
private static SyntaxKind GetTokenKind(OperatorKind kind)
=> kind switch
{
Expand Down
15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions src/Workspaces/CSharpTest/CodeGeneration/SyntaxGeneratorTests.cs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Threading;
using Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CodeGeneration;
using Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Formatting;
using Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Syntax;
using Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Editing;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -958,6 +959,20 @@ public void TestOperatorDeclaration()
"explicit operator bool (global::System.Int32 p0, global::System.String p1)\r\n{\r\n}");
}

[Fact, WorkItem(63410, "https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/63410")]
public void TestCheckedOperator()
{
var comp = CSharpCompilation.Create(null, new[] { SyntaxFactory.ParseSyntaxTree("""
public class C
{
public static C operator checked ++(C x) => x;
public static C operator ++(C x) => x;
}
""") });
var operatorSymbol = (IMethodSymbol)comp.GetTypeByMetadataName("C").GetMembers(WellKnownMemberNames.CheckedIncrementOperatorName).Single();
VerifySyntax<OperatorDeclarationSyntax>(Generator.OperatorDeclaration(operatorSymbol), "public static global::C operator checked ++(global::C x)\r\n{\r\n}");
}

[Fact]
public void TestConstructorDeclaration()
{
Expand Down
52 changes: 19 additions & 33 deletions src/Workspaces/Core/Portable/Editing/SyntaxGenerator.cs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -202,6 +202,18 @@ public virtual SyntaxNode OperatorDeclaration(
throw new NotImplementedException();
}

private protected virtual SyntaxNode OperatorDeclaration(
int syntaxKind,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i think i'd prefer just passing hte operator name along. thsi also includes 'checked' so it can subsume the first two parameters.

bool isChecked,
IEnumerable<SyntaxNode>? parameters = null,
SyntaxNode? returnType = null,
Accessibility accessibility = Accessibility.NotApplicable,
DeclarationModifiers modifiers = default,
IEnumerable<SyntaxNode>? statements = null)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what's this guy?

Copy link
Member Author

@Youssef1313 Youssef1313 Aug 17, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@CyrusNajmabadi A new method that allows me to pass isChecked. I couldn't think of another good way.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that makes sense. w hy is this virtual though and not abstract?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I incorrectly assumed the type is subclass-able when I saw this:

roslyn/src/Workspaces/Core/Portable/Editing/SyntaxGenerator.cs

Lines 194 to 203 in 8f96b1b

public virtual SyntaxNode OperatorDeclaration(
OperatorKind kind,
IEnumerable<SyntaxNode>? parameters = null,
SyntaxNode? returnType = null,
Accessibility accessibility = Accessibility.NotApplicable,
DeclarationModifiers modifiers = default,
IEnumerable<SyntaxNode>? statements = null)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}

Given there are already non-public abstract methods, it's indeed okay to make the new methods abstract.

This is fixed in the last commit now.


/// <summary>
/// Creates a method declaration matching an existing method symbol.
/// </summary>
Expand All @@ -212,8 +224,10 @@ public SyntaxNode OperatorDeclaration(IMethodSymbol method, IEnumerable<SyntaxNo
throw new ArgumentException("Method is not an operator.");
}

var kind = GetOperatorSyntaxKind(method, out var isChecked);
var decl = OperatorDeclaration(
GetOperatorKind(method),
kind,
isChecked,
parameters: method.Parameters.Select(p => ParameterDeclaration(p)),
returnType: method.ReturnType.IsSystemVoid() ? null : TypeExpression(method.ReturnType),
accessibility: method.DeclaredAccessibility,
Expand All @@ -223,38 +237,10 @@ public SyntaxNode OperatorDeclaration(IMethodSymbol method, IEnumerable<SyntaxNo
return decl;
}

private static OperatorKind GetOperatorKind(IMethodSymbol method)
=> method.Name switch
{
WellKnownMemberNames.ImplicitConversionName => OperatorKind.ImplicitConversion,
WellKnownMemberNames.ExplicitConversionName => OperatorKind.ExplicitConversion,
WellKnownMemberNames.AdditionOperatorName => OperatorKind.Addition,
WellKnownMemberNames.BitwiseAndOperatorName => OperatorKind.BitwiseAnd,
WellKnownMemberNames.BitwiseOrOperatorName => OperatorKind.BitwiseOr,
WellKnownMemberNames.DecrementOperatorName => OperatorKind.Decrement,
WellKnownMemberNames.DivisionOperatorName => OperatorKind.Division,
WellKnownMemberNames.EqualityOperatorName => OperatorKind.Equality,
WellKnownMemberNames.ExclusiveOrOperatorName => OperatorKind.ExclusiveOr,
WellKnownMemberNames.FalseOperatorName => OperatorKind.False,
WellKnownMemberNames.GreaterThanOperatorName => OperatorKind.GreaterThan,
WellKnownMemberNames.GreaterThanOrEqualOperatorName => OperatorKind.GreaterThanOrEqual,
WellKnownMemberNames.IncrementOperatorName => OperatorKind.Increment,
WellKnownMemberNames.InequalityOperatorName => OperatorKind.Inequality,
WellKnownMemberNames.LeftShiftOperatorName => OperatorKind.LeftShift,
WellKnownMemberNames.LessThanOperatorName => OperatorKind.LessThan,
WellKnownMemberNames.LessThanOrEqualOperatorName => OperatorKind.LessThanOrEqual,
WellKnownMemberNames.LogicalNotOperatorName => OperatorKind.LogicalNot,
WellKnownMemberNames.ModulusOperatorName => OperatorKind.Modulus,
WellKnownMemberNames.MultiplyOperatorName => OperatorKind.Multiply,
WellKnownMemberNames.OnesComplementOperatorName => OperatorKind.OnesComplement,
WellKnownMemberNames.RightShiftOperatorName => OperatorKind.RightShift,
WellKnownMemberNames.UnsignedRightShiftOperatorName => OperatorKind.UnsignedRightShift,
WellKnownMemberNames.SubtractionOperatorName => OperatorKind.Subtraction,
WellKnownMemberNames.TrueOperatorName => OperatorKind.True,
WellKnownMemberNames.UnaryNegationOperatorName => OperatorKind.UnaryNegation,
WellKnownMemberNames.UnaryPlusOperatorName => OperatorKind.UnaryPlus,
_ => throw new ArgumentException("Unknown operator kind."),
};
private protected virtual int GetOperatorSyntaxKind(IMethodSymbol method, out bool isChecked)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why virtual and not abstract (applies to all methods like this).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@CyrusNajmabadi SyntaxGenerator is public. Adding new abstract members is breaking.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

SyntaxGenerator has internal-abstracts. It cannot be publicly subclassed :) you're fine adding a new abstract to it.

{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}

/// <summary>
/// Creates a parameter declaration.
Expand Down