Take the current index into account in the QueryTrieNodeResult. #16085
  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  Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
  
    
  
    
When playing around with GBC in https://github.com/fslaborg/Graphoscope/blob/developer/src/Graphoscope/Graphoscope.fsproj I discovered another edge case.
Consider the following setup:
scenario "Ghost dependency via top-level namespace" [ sourceFile "Graph.fs" """ namespace Graphoscope.Graph type UndirectedGraph = obj """ Set.empty sourceFile "DiGraph.fs" """ namespace Graphoscope open Graphoscope type DiGraph = obj """ (set [| 0 |]) ]DiGraph.fsshould depend onGraph.fsto satisfy theopen Graphoscope.The open statement can safely be removed in the actual code but is valid nonetheless given the file order.
The Trie:
classDiagram class root root <|-- ns_Graphoscope class ns_Graphoscope { DiGraph.fs[1] Graph.fs(0) } ns_Graphoscope <|-- ns_Graph class ns_Graph { Graph.fs[0] }DiGraph.fsadds data tons_Graphoscope, butGraph.fsdoes not.Out of necessity to resolve the
open Graphoscopewe need to establish that fromDiGraph.fspoint of view the node (ns_Graphoscope) does not expose data and thus the ghost dependency resolution should kick in.In practice, the more obvious thing to do is of course to remove the unused open statement, but we will want to be able to type-check the project using GBC.
@safesparrow could you take a look at this one as well, please?