Handle field reference from semantic model in non-field-backed property #75904
Conversation
dotnet-issue-labeler
bot
added
Area-Compilers
untriaged
| [WorkItem("https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/75893")] | ||
| [Theory] | ||
| [CombinatorialData] | ||
| public void SpeculativeSemanticModel(bool includeLocal) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just FYI, doesn't have to be done in this PR (or even done at all), but when I previously worked on the feature, I have written relatively large amount of tests which also include SpeculativeSemanticModel. I haven't checked if the exact case in this test is one of those I wrote, but generally I think it may be a good idea to copy those tests. Some test outcomes may be different from the now-expected behavior and may require adjustments though.
The tests are here: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/32d6c1db46fd613888d08970908257fbacf328ba/src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit2/Semantics/PropertyFieldKeywordTests.cs
There was also this test:
And this:
And
, and finally https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/32d6c1db46fd613888d08970908257fbacf328ba/src/ExpressionEvaluator/CSharp/Test/ExpressionCompiler/ExpressionCompilerTests.cs#L6959C21-L6959C52There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @Youssef1313 for links to your tests from the earlier branch. I had previously referenced the tests in PropertyFieldKeywordTests in #75398, and I've added a link to your comment there. I'll investigate the tests as part of that issue. In the meantime, this particular issue seemed straightforward enough to handle directly.
| @@ -1465,9 +1465,12 @@ private BoundExpression BindFieldExpression(FieldExpressionSyntax node, BindingD | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // Field will be null when binding a field expression in a speculative | |||
| // semantic model when the property does not have a backing field. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in a speculative semantic model when the property does not have a backing field.
Consider if we could assert the fact. At least partially. #Resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It wasn't obvious what to assert here since the Binder is not specific to the semantic model (IsSemanticModelBinder == false), even when called from that code path.
| [WorkItem("https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/75893")] | ||
| [Theory] | ||
| [CombinatorialData] | ||
| public void SpeculativeSemanticModel(bool includeLocal) |
Fixes #75893