x/tools/gopls: analysis driver spuriously reports invalid suggested fixes due to AST repair #71659
Comments
adonovan
added
gopls
gabyhelp
added
the
BugReport
|
In v0.17.1, line 1143 was the third line of Edit: oops, meant to post this on #71660. |
|
Yes, I think a version skew is possible since the line numbers are not always off by one by some variable amount, which could correspond to recent changes in the code. |
This call to pass.Report has a diagnostic with a single SuggestedFix of a single TextEdit (a deletion). The various possible errors returned by validateFix are:
("overlapping edits" is not possible, nor is "analyzer %q suggests two fixes with same Message (%s)") This means that at least one of stmt.Pos(), stmt.End() is invalid (zero, beyond EOF, or not mapped to a token.File). stmt is an element of ast.BlockStmt.List. The logic in the unreachable analyzer is unimpeachable, so I think either the parser recovery or the AST fixing logic must be to blame. Perhaps the input file is incomplete, something like |
|
Indeed, some variant of Nonetheless, it confirms that it's a truncated file AST repair issue, in other words another variant of #66790 (comment) (which is perhaps also the root cause of #64547) |
adonovan
changed the title
|
Repro, found while investigating https://go.dev/cl/638395, which changes the parser behavior. Nonetheless it's pretty clear what class of errors this represents: The missing label in the goto statement is currently not a parse error; but with CL 638395, it is an error, and it causes the parser to consume the var _ = func() {
goto
}
func _() int {
switch {
case 1:
println()
}
println()
} |
|
Change https://go.dev/cl/651155 mentions this issue: |
This test case is about to become a parse error. To allow us to submit the change to the parser, we must relax this test. Updates golang/go#71659 Updates golang/go#70957 Change-Id: Ic4fbfedb69d152d691dec41a94bb402149463f84 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/651155 Auto-Submit: Alan Donovan <[email protected]> LUCI-TryBot-Result: Go LUCI <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Robert Findley <[email protected]>
|
Change https://go.dev/cl/652977 mentions this issue: |
…relax test for CL 638395 This test case is about to become a parse error. To allow us to submit the change to the parser, we must relax this test. Updates golang/go#71659 Updates golang/go#70957 Change-Id: Ic4fbfedb69d152d691dec41a94bb402149463f84 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/651155 Auto-Submit: Alan Donovan <[email protected]> LUCI-TryBot-Result: Go LUCI <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Robert Findley <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit d2fcd36) Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/652977 Auto-Submit: Robert Findley <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Hongxiang Jiang <[email protected]>
|
Change https://go.dev/cl/660397 mentions this issue: |
Issue created by stacks.
This stack indicates that the
unreachableanalyzer violates the SuggestedFix preconditions now documented and checked by the gopls analysis driver.This stack
Gf7EXQwas reported by telemetry:gopls/buggolang.org/x/tools/gopls/internal/util/bug.report:+35golang.org/x/tools/gopls/internal/util/bug.Reportf:+1golang.org/x/tools/gopls/internal/cache.(*action).exec.func3:+3golang.org/x/tools/go/analysis/passes/unreachable.(*deadState).findDead:+17golang.org/x/tools/go/analysis/passes/unreachable.(*deadState).findDead:+49golang.org/x/tools/go/analysis/passes/unreachable.run.func1:+19golang.org/x/tools/go/ast/inspector.(*Inspector).Preorder:+20golang.org/x/tools/go/analysis/passes/unreachable.run:+7golang.org/x/tools/gopls/internal/cache.(*action).exec.func7:+31golang.org/x/tools/gopls/internal/cache.(*action).exec:+282golang.org/x/tools/gopls/internal/cache.execActions.func1.1:+2sync.(*Once).doSlow:+5sync.(*Once).Do:=67golang.org/x/tools/gopls/internal/cache.execActions.func1:+2runtime.goexit:+0Dups: EmaIvQ KznUPA JuVvTw 10HCWA mAqhog S-mQmQ 2q8x9A Vc6s2g yM5t_A Ne_rfg rN06Cw QGVc7g cp-4UQ fb8Dbg bgKp4Q H8EfOg tIGLig s00Qzg wX0s_A EFdz_A _AqRig 2l7h9g 6L5mmA g92Uyw 2e6Ziw B3yvxg SLq6lA eMJmBQ VMn62A nxVngw 4wnTaA H2vDzA S4gjMA -DlRtg Rm3VbQ Zumn2w H0xvEQ -ubuiA eFXWcg U_brvg TqSiJg ipVwYg Zumn1Q WCZHkQ nR04fA kIYX0g 0bITOw VdeswQ XFAqdQ PbQHuw 6voO2Q pZqskQ DA7D_A VH1-DA i9_tJQ n5N7dg tIGkrQ
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: