Skip to content

Simplify mergeEmitNode#59613

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
Jake Bailey (jakebailey) wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Simplify mergeEmitNode #59613

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
cf6e6ce
Simplify mergeEmitNode
jakebailey Aug 12, 2024
44f6caf
Fix lint
jakebailey Aug 12, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
21 changes: 4 additions & 17 deletions src/compiler/factory/nodeFactory.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1,9 +1,7 @@
import {
__String,
AccessorDeclaration,
addRange,
append,
appendIfUnique,
ArrayBindingElement,
ArrayBindingPattern,
ArrayLiteralExpression,
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -422,7 +420,6 @@ import {
TemplateMiddle,
TemplateSpan,
TemplateTail,
TextRange,
ThisExpression,
ThisTypeNode,
ThrowStatement,
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -7449,13 +7446,13 @@ function mergeEmitNode(sourceEmitNode: EmitNode, destEmitNode: EmitNode | undefi
// `leadingComments` are concatenated with any existing leading comments on the destination
if (leadingComments) {
// We use `.slice()` in case `destEmitNode.leadingComments` is pushed to later
destEmitNode.leadingComments = addRange(leadingComments.slice(), destEmitNode.leadingComments);
destEmitNode.leadingComments = leadingComments.slice();

@rbucktonRon Buckton (rbuckton)Aug 13, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I worry this results in a different inconsistency now. Before, we would attempt to merge the emit information for the old node into anything set on the new node prior to calling setOriginalNode. Now we will conditionally overwrite some properties but not others.

constoldNode= ...;addSyntheticLeadingComment(oldNode,SyntaxKind.SingleLineCommentTrivia,"foo");constnewNode= ...;addSyntheticLeadingComment(oldNode,SyntaxKind.SingleLineCommentTrivia,"bar");addSyntheticTrailingComment(oldNode,SyntaxKind.SingleLineCommentTrivia,"baz");setOriginalNode(newNode,oldNode);// beforegetSyntheticLeadingComments(newNode).length;// 2 (foo and bar)getSyntheticTrailingComments(newNode).length;// 1 (baz)// aftergetSyntheticLeadingComments(newNode).length;// 1 (foo)getSyntheticTrailingComments(newNode).length;// 1 (baz)

After this change we end up with oldNode's leading comments but newNodes trailing comments, which seems more confusing.

@jakebaileyJake Bailey (jakebailey)Aug 13, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I certainly am not confident in this PR, but we do need something for #59332.

@armanio123Armando Aguirre (armanio123)Aug 13, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I originally considered using appendIfUnique to avoid duplicating but also to concatenate. Would you think that's a good fix?

}

// `trailingComments` are concatenated with any existing trailing comments on the destination
if (trailingComments) {
// We use `.slice()` in case `destEmitNode.trailingComments` is pushed to later
destEmitNode.trailingComments = addRange(trailingComments.slice(), destEmitNode.trailingComments);
destEmitNode.trailingComments = trailingComments.slice();
}

// `commentRange` overwrites the destination
Expand All@@ -7470,7 +7467,7 @@ function mergeEmitNode(sourceEmitNode: EmitNode, destEmitNode: EmitNode | undefi

// `tokenSourceMapRanges` are merged with the destination
if (tokenSourceMapRanges) {
destEmitNode.tokenSourceMapRanges = mergeTokenSourceMapRanges(tokenSourceMapRanges, destEmitNode.tokenSourceMapRanges!);
destEmitNode.tokenSourceMapRanges = tokenSourceMapRanges.slice();
}

// `constantValue` overwrites the destination
Expand All@@ -7483,9 +7480,7 @@ function mergeEmitNode(sourceEmitNode: EmitNode, destEmitNode: EmitNode | undefi

// `helpers` are merged into the destination
if (helpers) {
for (const helper of helpers) {
destEmitNode.helpers = appendIfUnique(destEmitNode.helpers, helper);
}
destEmitNode.helpers = helpers.slice();
}

// `startsOnNewLine` overwrites the destination
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -7517,11 +7512,3 @@ function mergeEmitNode(sourceEmitNode: EmitNode, destEmitNode: EmitNode | undefi

return destEmitNode;
}

function mergeTokenSourceMapRanges(sourceRanges: (TextRange | undefined)[], destRanges: (TextRange | undefined)[]) {
if (!destRanges) destRanges = [];
for (const key in sourceRanges) {
destRanges[key] = sourceRanges[key];
}
return destRanges;
}
Comment on lines -7521 to -7527

@jakebaileyJake Bailey (jakebailey)Aug 12, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I read this function and it sort of scared me; what if the test has more elements than the source? Then I replaced it and nothing changed, so I kept going...

@rbucktonRon Buckton (rbuckton)Aug 13, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sourceRanges and destRanges are holey arrays, so length doesn't actually matter. It probably should just be a Map<number, TextRange>, to be honest.