Do not expose ClassInfo in memberType in reflect API #22402
Draft
+90
−1
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
fixes #22395
fixes #13319
fixes #15159
The
asSeenFrommethod, used inTypeRepr.memberTypesometimes can return ClassInfo instances, which we do not expose in the reflect API. This is either caused by nonsensical calls (calls with symbols unrelated to the type), or as in case of issue #22395, correct calls on nested classes.Since ClassInfo gives us precise type prefix and symbol, we transform that ClassInfo into a TypeRef (which is how types pointing to classes are usually represented in the reflect API).
Previously (in #15161) there were attempts to completely limit calling memberType to the direct members of the type (to avoid the nonsensical calls), however that causes major regressions in both the compilation tests, and (in my opinion) functionality (as explained in the comment). So instead we check if the passed symbol if any owner of the passed symbol is a member of the typeRepr (basically, we allow obtaining the types of a nested members). With the above fix, this check is not strictly necessary, but I think it might help avoid confusion about how memberType is supposed to be used.