[Concurrency] Downgrade errors to warnings when Sendable requirement is inferred from a preconcurrency protocol
#81960
Conversation
xedin
requested review from
AnthonyLatsis,
hborla,
ktoso and
slavapestov
as code owners
|
@swift-ci please test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like that the diagnostic structurally looks through types with conditional conformances and points out the type that is actually non-Sendable. It might be nice as a follow up to somehow tailor the diagnostic in the case where the property type contains the non-Sendable type.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was the inconsistency between enum elements and properties, the former printed the mismatched type and the latter the whole type. Maybe for inner type we should use contains or uses instead of has something like:
stored property 'tuple' of 'Sendable'-conforming struct 'S' contains a non-Sendable type 'any Q.Type'?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I think contains sounds good!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll change it in this PR since CI is broken anyway due to stdlib changes.
|
@swift-ci please test macOS platform |
|
@swift-ci please clean test macOS platform |
|
@swift-ci please test Linux |
|
@swift-ci please test Windows platform |
…econcurrencyProtocol` The new name better reflects the intention for this Sendable check kind.
…t is inferred from a preconcurrency protocol If a type gets `Sendable` conformace requirement through another `@preconcurrency` protocol the error should be downgraded even with strict concurrency checking to allow clients time to address the new requirement. Resolves: rdar://146027395
…appears inside of a member type
|
@swift-ci please test Linux platform |
|
@swift-ci please test Windows platform |
|
@swift-ci please test Linux platform |
|
@swift-ci please test macOS platform |
3 participants
If a type gets
Sendableconformance requirement through another@preconcurrencyprotocol the error should be downgraded evenwith strict concurrency checking to allow clients time to address
the new requirement.
Resolves: rdar://146027395