-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 577
Use correct ResolutionMode for files when resolving/loading files #267
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
Open
EricCornelson
wants to merge
4
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
ercornel/resolutionMode
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -1147,6 +1147,18 @@ func IsInJSFile(node *Node) bool { | |
return node != nil && node.Flags&NodeFlagsJavaScriptFile != 0 | ||
} | ||
|
||
func IsRequireCall(node *Node, requireStringLiteralLikeArgument bool) bool { | ||
if IsCallExpression(node) { | ||
callExpression := node.AsCallExpression() | ||
if len(callExpression.Arguments.Nodes) == 1 { | ||
if IsIdentifier(callExpression.Expression) && callExpression.Expression.AsIdentifier().Text == "require" { | ||
return !requireStringLiteralLikeArgument || IsStringLiteralLike(callExpression.Arguments.Nodes[0]) | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
return false | ||
} | ||
|
||
func IsDeclaration(node *Node) bool { | ||
if node.Kind == KindTypeParameter { | ||
return node.Parent != nil | ||
|
@@ -1196,6 +1208,20 @@ func IsImportOrExportSpecifier(node *Node) bool { | |
return IsImportSpecifier(node) || IsExportSpecifier(node) | ||
} | ||
|
||
func IsExclusivelyTypeOnlyImportOrExport(decl *Node) bool { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The function IsExclusivelyTypeOnlyImportOrExport is missing a case for KindImportEqualsDeclaration. Please add this case to ensure all relevant node kinds are covered. Copilot is powered by AI, so mistakes are possible. Review output carefully before use. Positive FeedbackNegative Feedback |
||
switch decl.Kind { | ||
case KindImportDeclaration: | ||
importDecl := decl.AsImportDeclaration() | ||
if importDecl.ImportClause != nil { | ||
return importDecl.ImportClause.AsImportClause().IsTypeOnly | ||
} | ||
case KindExportDeclaration: | ||
return decl.AsExportDeclaration().IsTypeOnly | ||
} | ||
|
||
return false | ||
} | ||
|
||
func isVoidZero(node *Node) bool { | ||
return IsVoidExpression(node) && IsNumericLiteral(node.Expression()) && node.Expression().Text() == "0" | ||
} | ||
|
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 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
This method modifies the source file; I suspect we'll need some additional protection later if we start sharing these ASTs between programs so that two programs can't possibly race to be the first to update this info (note
lineMap
above). But I assume it doesn't matter at the moment.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.
Though, I do wonder if we can come up with some method by which we don't do this here, but instead as a part of parsing or binding themselves...
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.
It looks to me like this could be done at parse time, but we are specifically just setting the
NodeFlagsPossiblyContainsDynamicImport
flag inparseImportType()
, so I guess I'd presume there's some important reason to defer it. Maybe to do with incremental parsing (which might not be valid anymore)?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.
It looks like this is already being handled in Parser.