[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-11822?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Björn Kautler updated GROOVY-11822:
-----------------------------------
Description:
Given the [following
code|https://groovyconsole.dev/?g=groovy_4_0&codez=eNqNjUsKwkAQRPdzit5FQRvdSUAILswBPEFnbONgTA_d46CE3N34WYuL2hSvXlW1UjPL1N0YtlCItkiR_JmxVZH8wJabcsrSovhLucEVrosFJKXeQgr5tTpRZzx31b8qL8o_TeEaRRNMLL5vsebmENk75zsyg70IDA7AEqXg4VPuSIHvifujwZeHAUY3PgEE2Exx]:
{code:groovy}@Grab(value = 'org.apache.groovy.geb:geb-spock:8.0.1', transitive
= false)
@Grab(value = 'org.apache.groovy.geb:geb-core:8.0.1', transitive = false)
import geb.spock.GebSpec
class Foo {
static class Bar extends GebSpec { }
}{code}
If you try to compile it, you get a compiler error
{quote}The return type of void propertyMissing(java.lang.String,
java.lang.Object) in Foo$Bar is incompatible with java.lang.Object in
geb.spock.GebSpec{quote}
The reason is, that the extended class has a {{propertyMissing}} setter with
{{Object}} return type instead of {{void}}.
This is perfectly fine as far as the metaprogramming functionality is concerned
and works as intended.
But the Groovy compiler tries to generate a {{void}} version for the static
nested class and then fails as only the return type of the signature is
different which cannot work.
If you would have such metaprogramming methods directly in your code, the
compiler would fail with a meaningful error telling that you must not use those
methods on static nested classes which is sad but at least clear.
So maybe supertypes should be checked for the exact signature used and then the
same signature should be used to not get a compile error due to return types of
methods you are not involved in directly.
was:
Given the [following
code|https://groovyconsole.dev/?g=groovy_4_0&codez=eNqNjUsKwkAQRPdzit5FQRvdSUAILswBPEFnbONgTA_d46CE3N34WYuL2hSvXlW1UjPL1N0YtlCItkiR_JmxVZH8wJabcsrSovhLucEVrosFJKXeQgr5tTpRZzx31b8qL8o_TeEaRRNMLL5vsebmENk75zsyg70IDA7AEqXg4VPuSIHvifujwZeHAUY3PgEE2Exx]:
{code:groovy}@Grab(value = 'org.apache.groovy.geb:geb-spock:8.0.1', transitive
= false)
@Grab(value = 'org.apache.groovy.geb:geb-core:8.0.1', transitive = false)
import geb.spock.GebSpec
class Foo {
static class Bar extends GebSpec { }
}{code}
If you try to compile it, you get a compiler error
{quote}The return type of void propertyMissing(java.lang.String,
java.lang.Object) in Foo$Bar is incompatible with java.lang.Object in
geb.spock.GebSpec{quote}
The reason is, that the extended class has a {{propertyMissing}} setter with
`Object` return type instead of `void`.
This is perfectly fine as far as the metaprogramming functionality is concerned
and works as intended.
But the Groovy compiler tries to generate a `void` version for the static
nested class and then fails as only the return type of the signature is
different which cannot work.
If you would have such metaprogramming methods directly in your code, the
compiler would fail with a meaningful error telling that you must not use those
methods on static inner classes which is sad but at least clear.
So maybe supertypes should be checked for the exact signature used and then the
same signature should be used to not get a compile error due to return types of
methods you are not involved in directly.
> metadata methods on static nested class fail compilation if extended class
> uses slightly different signature
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GROOVY-11822
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-11822
> Project: Groovy
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 4.0.29
> Reporter: Björn Kautler
> Priority: Major
>
> Given the [following
> code|https://groovyconsole.dev/?g=groovy_4_0&codez=eNqNjUsKwkAQRPdzit5FQRvdSUAILswBPEFnbONgTA_d46CE3N34WYuL2hSvXlW1UjPL1N0YtlCItkiR_JmxVZH8wJabcsrSovhLucEVrosFJKXeQgr5tTpRZzx31b8qL8o_TeEaRRNMLL5vsebmENk75zsyg70IDA7AEqXg4VPuSIHvifujwZeHAUY3PgEE2Exx]:
> {code:groovy}@Grab(value = 'org.apache.groovy.geb:geb-spock:8.0.1',
> transitive = false)
> @Grab(value = 'org.apache.groovy.geb:geb-core:8.0.1', transitive = false)
> import geb.spock.GebSpec
> class Foo {
> static class Bar extends GebSpec { }
> }{code}
> If you try to compile it, you get a compiler error
> {quote}The return type of void propertyMissing(java.lang.String,
> java.lang.Object) in Foo$Bar is incompatible with java.lang.Object in
> geb.spock.GebSpec{quote}
> The reason is, that the extended class has a {{propertyMissing}} setter with
> {{Object}} return type instead of {{void}}.
> This is perfectly fine as far as the metaprogramming functionality is
> concerned and works as intended.
> But the Groovy compiler tries to generate a {{void}} version for the static
> nested class and then fails as only the return type of the signature is
> different which cannot work.
> If you would have such metaprogramming methods directly in your code, the
> compiler would fail with a meaningful error telling that you must not use
> those methods on static nested classes which is sad but at least clear.
> So maybe supertypes should be checked for the exact signature used and then
> the same signature should be used to not get a compile error due to return
> types of methods you are not involved in directly.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
