Thanks! I appreciate the suggestion to run tests, but what I’ve tried in the
past, @swift-ci ignored me. Is there a whitelist for who can request that tests
be run? That would make sense from a security perspective.
> On Aug 8, 2017, at 23:48, Slava Pestov <spes...@apple.com> wrote:
> I see you’re two steps ahead of me already:
> This looks good, nice catch!
>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 8:45 PM, Slava Pestov <spes...@apple.com
>> <mailto:spes...@apple.com>> wrote:
>>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 3:34 PM, David Zarzycki via swift-dev
>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
>>> In ConstraintSystem::performMemberLookup(), constructors with “simple”
>>> names have a dedicated lookup path. In contrast, constructors with compound
>>> names are handled by the normal lookup. If I delete this code and let the
>>> normal lookup path handle both simple and compound named constructors, I
>>> find that all 10,214 validation tests pass on my machine (albeit with
>>> slightly different error messages in three test files).
>> I would suggest running the source compatibility test suite also (see “pull
>> request testing” in https://swift.org/source-compatibility/
>> <https://swift.org/source-compatibility/>), but it is quite possible the
>> code is indeed unnecessary.
>>> Is the test suite missing a test for this code path and if so, what? Or
>>> should it be scheduled for deletion after identical error messages can be
>>> generated by the normal lookup path?
>> Are the new error messages worse or just different? If the latter there’s
>> really no requirement to keep them identical.
>>> swift-dev mailing list
>>> firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>
swift-dev mailing list