[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-10714?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17574305#comment-17574305
]
Eric Milles commented on GROOVY-10714:
--------------------------------------
GROOVY-9881 added a tie-breaker for closures/lambdas where the number of
parameters provided could help determine the overload to use.
https://github.com/apache/groovy/blob/68f4712b3de7525feb2b6dd9d4f93e5cc634e5cf/src/main/java/org/codehaus/groovy/transform/stc/StaticTypeCheckingSupport.java#L951
This could be done for method references as well for the situation where all
"putItem" methods (from your example) have the same number of parameters.
But that will not help {{Consumer}} vs {{Runnable}}. Do you happen to have a
small project that recreates the error you are seeing?
> STC can't distinguish overloads
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: GROOVY-10714
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-10714
> Project: Groovy
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Static compilation
> Affects Versions: 4.0.4
> Reporter: Christopher Smith
> Assignee: Eric Milles
> Priority: Minor
>
> This appears to be similar to GROOVY-9881, but it's specifically in the
> method-overload procedure. Given a functional value type with two method
> overloads:
> {code}
> interface Try<T> {
> Try<T> andThenTry(Consumer<? super T>)
> Try<T> andThenTry(Runnable)
> }
> {code}
> When this code is invoked from static code, the STC errors out on an
> ambiguous method reference even if the method type isn't:
> {code}
> // AWS SDK 2 DynamoDbTable
> class DynamoDbTable {
> void putItem(PutItemRequest<T>)
> void putItem(Consumer<PutItemRequest.Builder<T>)
> void putItem(T)
> }
> @CompileStatic
> class MyServiceClass {
> void doThing() {
> Try.success(putItemRequest())
> .andThenTry(table::putItem) // T for Try<T> is PutItemRequest<I>
> }
> }
> {code}
> produces
> {code}
> [Static type checking] - Reference to method is ambiguous. Cannot choose
> between [Try<T> Try#andThenTry(Consumer<? super T>), Try<T>
> Try#andThenTry(Runnable)]
> {code}
> I think this may have something to do with the relaxed SAM matching that is
> used to bridge ambiguous closure syntax, but when a plain method reference is
> used, there's no ambiguity available.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
