Rust: Only include relevant AST nodes in TypeMention #19557
Merged
+125
−89
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
paldepind
commented
May 22, 2025
| @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | |||
| illFormedTypeMention | |||
| | main.rs:403:18:403:24 | FuncPtr | | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This inconsistency is a path to a function pointer type, which doesn't have a type as we don't support function pointers types.
|
DCA seems fine though I don't really understand the result.
|
They would have to be added here, and then we would also have to add a new report to DCA. |
|
Thanks. I've added type inference inconsistencies to |
hvitved
approved these changes
May 26, 2025
hvitved
requested changes
May 26, 2025
paldepind
force-pushed
the
rust/type-mention-consistency
branch
6 times, most recently
from
a627277 to
5e4576b
Compare
paldepind
force-pushed
the
rust/type-mention-consistency
branch
3 times, most recently
from
3099d3d to
0023122
Compare
|
Now the CI is (finally) happy. I removed type inference inconsistencies from the reduced summary stats and also suppressed inconsistencies in library code. |
hvitved
previously approved these changes
May 27, 2025
| @@ -156,7 +164,14 @@ predicate inconsistencyStats(string key, int value) { | |||
| or | |||
| key = "Inconsistencies - SSA" and value = getTotalSsaInconsistencies() | |||
| or | |||
| key = "Inconsistencies - data flow" and value = getTotalDataFlowInconsistencies() | |||
| key = "Inconsistencies - Data flow" and value = getTotalDataFlowInconsistencies() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will require an internal change in the DCA report.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh 😭 I'll revert it.
paldepind
force-pushed
the
rust/type-mention-consistency
branch
from
0023122 to
6313703
Compare
paldepind
force-pushed
the
rust/type-mention-consistency
branch
from
6313703 to
5228062
Compare
hvitved
approved these changes
May 27, 2025
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.
At some point when quick eval'ing something I noticed that we have a lot of superfluous elements in
TypeMention.This PR adds a basic consistency check for
TypeMentions: that they have a type in the root. One could go further and check that the entire type tree corresponds to the types, but checking the root was enough at the moment to find interesting stuff.The biggest source of unnecessary
TypeMentions was that we includePathinTypeMention, which also included all paths that are not types.A second inconsistency where paths where path resolution failed to find anything. These have now been excluded, as they don't do any good as
TypeMentions anyway.There's still a lot of inconsistencies reported by the PR. One source is paths that resolve to a union, which don't have a type as we do not support unions.
On
rustthis PR reduces the number ofTypeMentions from around 13 million to around 2 million.