GRDB compatiblity with Swift 6.0 #964

groue · 2025-01-14T07:17:06Z

Pull Request Description

Hello, this pull request adds compatibility check for GRDB with Swift 6.0.

Acceptance Criteria

To be accepted into the Swift source compatibility test suite, a project must:

The last check does not pass, due to the lack of support for Swift 6.0 in project_precommit_check (see #963).

groue · 2025-01-21T07:08:29Z

Hello, is there anything I should do for having this PR reviewed and merged?

justice-adams-apple · 2025-01-21T16:53:46Z

@groue no my apologies on the late review! 👁️

justice-adams-apple · 2025-01-21T16:54:11Z

@swift-ci test

justice-adams-apple · 2025-01-22T00:31:19Z

@groue error: stored property 'qos' of 'Sendable'-conforming struct 'Configuration' has non-sendable type 'DispatchQoS'

Was this able to build locally for you using a recent compiler?

groue · 2025-01-22T06:57:20Z

Hello @justice-adams-apple,

@groue error: stored property 'qos' of 'Sendable'-conforming struct 'Configuration' has non-sendable type 'DispatchQoS'

Was this able to build locally for you using a recent compiler?

Yes, I can build the specified commit 3ecb5c54553559217592d21a6d9841becb891b38 with multiple Swift 6.0+ toolchains:

Xcode 16.0 ✅

$ swiftc -version
swift-driver version: 1.115 Apple Swift version 6.0 (swiftlang-6.0.0.9.10 clang-1600.0.26.2)
Target: arm64-apple-macosx14.0
$ swift build
Building for debugging...
[171/171] Linking libGRDB-dynamic.dylib
Build complete! (7.45s)

Xcode 16.1 ✅

$ swiftc -version
swift-driver version: 1.115 Apple Swift version 6.0.2 (swiftlang-6.0.2.1.2 clang-1600.0.26.4)

Xcode 16.2 ✅

$ swiftc -version
swift-driver version: 1.115.1 Apple Swift version 6.0.3 (swiftlang-6.0.3.1.10 clang-1600.0.30.1)

Linux builds ✅ I don't know which version specifically, but this PR was recently merged, and at the time we were already relying on the sendability of DispatchQoS: groue/GRDB.swift#1644

groue · 2025-01-22T07:09:21Z

My interpretation of the failure is that the toolchain used by the compatibility suite is not identical to the released toolchains.

Since projects.json does not currently contain any compatibility commit that targets Swift 6.0, I understand that we see early glitches. This pull request targets uncharted territory! I'm happy to make this contribution to Swift-6.0 compatibility with GRDB, a rich package that mixes Swift 6 language mode in the main target, and Swift 5 language mode in the test target.

Swift 6 comes with strict concurrency checkings, so it is crucial that the compatibility suite runs with the exact same concurrency annotations as the released toolchains (stdlib, Foundation, Dispatch, etc.) Any difference in Sendable conformances, sending annotations, actor isolation, etc. will trigger false positive errors.

groue · 2025-01-31T10:55:56Z

I hope I haven't uncovered a problem that can not be addressed in this repository.

If I have, what is my best option for successfully have this pull request merged? I could perform changes in the GRDB repo, in order to make it compatible with the particular toolchain that is used here, for example?

I could add the following line to GRDB:

// DispatchQoS already conforms to Sendable, except
// in swiftlang/swift-source-compat-suite, which needs
// this extra conformance.
extension DispatchQoS: @retroactive Sendable { }

Still, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I find it concerning that the compatibility suite does not use the same toolchain as the released one. This weakens the "compatibility" that is tested. Given the sensitivity of Swift 6 to concurrency annotations, the compatibility we need involves the compiler, the standard lib, and core libraries as well (Foundation, Dispatch, Synchronization, Observation, etc.)

justice-adams-apple · 2025-02-11T19:14:14Z

My interpretation of the failure is that the toolchain used by the compatibility suite is not identical to the released toolchains.

We use nightly toolchains so that we can catch issues before release as opposed to released toolchains which have already shipped

I could perform changes in the GRDB repo, in order to make it compatible with the particular toolchain that is used here, for example?

Yeah it's probably best to make the change in the repo because eventually when this compiler is released it would break your project. Sorry for the confusion, let me know if I can help out/answer anything else

groue · 2025-02-11T20:03:43Z

Yeah it's probably best to make the change in the repo because eventually when this compiler is released it would break your project. Sorry for the confusion, let me know if I can help out/answer anything else

? I don't get it. Isn't it exactly what the compatibility suite is supposed to prevent?

In the particular case we're discussing, I find it hard to believe that DispatchQoS will lose its Sendable conformance.

I was instead expecting an answer that would read like:

Thank you for spotting a regression in the toolchain! We will fix the DispatchQoS declaration in a future release. Until then, we accept this pull request, because it has 100% fulfilled the goal of this repository. Again, thank you!

groue · 2025-02-11T20:11:12Z

We use nightly toolchains so that we can catch issues before release as opposed to released toolchains which have already shipped

This makes sense when looking for regressions (such as the loss of the Sendable conformance of DispatchQoS), but it makes less sense when considering the acceptance of pull requests to this repository such as this one.

A build failure with a nightly toolchain reveals a regression in the nightly toolchain, which is exactly the purpose of this repository. It should not prevent the merge of a pull request like this one, which submits code that compiles with multiple released compilers.

I don't understand why this pull request is not already merged.

I question the methodology in place.

hborla · 2025-02-22T03:15:04Z

This makes sense when looking for regressions (such as the loss of the Sendable conformance of DispatchQoS)

DispatchQoS is Sendable, and it did not lose a Sendable conformance in any recent SDK as far as I can tell. I suspect the issue here is specifically a missing conformance to Sendable in swift-corelibs-libdispatch, and it looks like this disparity has always been an issue.

Yeah it's probably best to make the change in the repo because eventually when this compiler is released it would break your project.

No, if there is a known source compatibility failure caused by a compiler change, it should be fixed in the compiler. There are cases where a new failure is deliberate, such as when miscompiles are fixed, but this is not one of them.

I'll investigate the failures here and resolve them. I agree that GRDB should absolutely be part of the source compatibility suite. Thank you @groue for contributing it. I'll follow up here once I've resolved the other source compatibility issues, likely tomorrow.

groue · 2025-02-22T13:20:34Z

Thank you very much, for investigating the failure, and for the reminder of the purpose of this repository 👍

shahmishal · 2025-02-24T01:44:37Z

To merge this pull request, we need to xfail the project specifically the Swift 6.0 configuration with GitHub Issues tracking the bug. Once the issue is fixed, the suite will automatically mark it as an unexpected pass.

error: stored property 'qos' of 'Sendable'-conforming struct 'Configuration' has non-sendable type 'DispatchQoS'

More detail on how to xfail a configuration: https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-source-compat-suite?tab=readme-ov-file#marking-actions-as-expected-failures

hborla · 2025-02-24T23:23:48Z

swiftlang/swift-corelibs-libdispatch#859

@swift-ci test

hborla · 2025-02-24T23:31:06Z

swiftlang/swift-corelibs-libdispatch#859

@swift-ci test

hborla · 2025-02-25T03:05:25Z

The Sendable conformance issues with DispatchQoS and friends appear to be gone...which I don't quite understand because this is a build for macOS. In any case, those conformances are needed on Linux so I'm glad this PR surfaced the disparity.

The remaining failures are all related to DateFormatter, e.g.

/Users/ec2-user/jenkins/workspace/swift-PR-source-compat-suite-test-macOS/swift-source-compat-suite/project_cache/GRDB.swift/GRDB/Record/EncodableRecord.swift:554:10: error: associated value 'formatted' of 'Sendable'-conforming enum 'DatabaseDateEncodingStrategy' has non-sendable type 'DateFormatter'
552 |     
553 |     /// Encodes a String, according to the provided formatter
554 |     case formatted(DateFormatter)
    |          `- error: associated value 'formatted' of 'Sendable'-conforming enum 'DatabaseDateEncodingStrategy' has non-sendable type 'DateFormatter'
555 |     
556 |     /// Encodes the result of the user-provided function

Which is the known issue reported in swiftlang/swift#78635.

groue · 2025-02-25T08:03:50Z

I pushed a new GRDB commit, for version 7.3.0 instead of the beta version that was initially submitted.

The DateFormatter issue was "resolved" (with a workaround) in GRDB 7.3.0, so that GRDB users can play with Xcode 16.3 beta. I thus did not add an "xfail" entry for swiftlang/swift#78635.

I have no reference for the DispatchQoS issue, so I did not add any "xfail" entry for it.

@shahmishal, please feel free to push a correct "xfail" entry to my branch (you have the right to do so), or to suggest a correct "xfail" entry in the GitHub PR review interface, so that this pull request can be merged. The documentation you linked to refers to many internal details I'm not aware of. You'll be much more efficient than I can. Thank you in advance.

hborla · 2025-02-25T19:27:45Z

swiftlang/swift-corelibs-libdispatch#859

@swift-ci test

hborla · 2025-02-26T00:32:08Z

GRDB passed in the 6.0 configuration on the latest run! https://ci.swift.org/job/swift-PR-source-compat-suite-test-macOS/335/artifact/swift-source-compat-suite/PASS_GRDB.swift_6.0_BuildSwiftPackage.log

shahmishal · 2025-02-26T17:53:05Z

Merging this PR based on PASS_GRDB.swift_6.0_BuildSwiftPackage.log

groue · 2025-02-27T06:46:11Z

Thank you

GRDB compatiblity with Swift 6.0

008ffd6

groue requested review from shahmishal and justice-adams-apple as code owners January 14, 2025 07:17

groue mentioned this pull request Jan 14, 2025

Support for Swift 6.0? #963

Open

justice-adams-apple approved these changes Jan 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

groue mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2025

False positives reported in Sema.NumSwift6Errors via -stats-output-dir swiftlang/swift#79291

Closed

hborla mentioned this pull request Feb 24, 2025

Add missing Sendable conformances to DispatchPredicate, DispatchQoS, and DispatchTimeoutResult. swiftlang/swift-corelibs-libdispatch#859

Merged

Bump GRDB commit to v7.3.0

bb7f378

groue force-pushed the GRDB-Swift6.0 branch from 79adcab to bb7f378 Compare February 25, 2025 07:59

shahmishal merged commit 5eb391d into swiftlang:main Feb 26, 2025
1 check failed

groue deleted the GRDB-Swift6.0 branch February 27, 2025 11:34

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

GRDB compatiblity with Swift 6.0 #964

GRDB compatiblity with Swift 6.0 #964

groue commented Jan 14, 2025

groue commented Jan 21, 2025

justice-adams-apple commented Jan 21, 2025

justice-adams-apple commented Jan 21, 2025

justice-adams-apple commented Jan 22, 2025

groue commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

groue commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

groue commented Jan 31, 2025

justice-adams-apple commented Feb 11, 2025

groue commented Feb 11, 2025

groue commented Feb 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

hborla commented Feb 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

groue commented Feb 22, 2025

shahmishal commented Feb 24, 2025

hborla commented Feb 24, 2025

hborla commented Feb 24, 2025

hborla commented Feb 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

groue commented Feb 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

hborla commented Feb 25, 2025

hborla commented Feb 26, 2025

shahmishal commented Feb 26, 2025

groue commented Feb 27, 2025

GRDB compatiblity with Swift 6.0 #964

GRDB compatiblity with Swift 6.0 #964

Conversation

groue commented Jan 14, 2025

Pull Request Description

Acceptance Criteria

groue commented Jan 21, 2025

justice-adams-apple commented Jan 21, 2025

justice-adams-apple commented Jan 21, 2025

justice-adams-apple commented Jan 22, 2025

groue commented Jan 22, 2025 • edited Loading

groue commented Jan 22, 2025 • edited Loading

groue commented Jan 31, 2025

justice-adams-apple commented Feb 11, 2025

groue commented Feb 11, 2025

groue commented Feb 11, 2025 • edited Loading

hborla commented Feb 22, 2025 • edited Loading

groue commented Feb 22, 2025

shahmishal commented Feb 24, 2025

hborla commented Feb 24, 2025

hborla commented Feb 24, 2025

hborla commented Feb 25, 2025 • edited Loading

groue commented Feb 25, 2025 • edited Loading

hborla commented Feb 25, 2025

hborla commented Feb 26, 2025

shahmishal commented Feb 26, 2025

groue commented Feb 27, 2025

groue commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

groue commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

groue commented Feb 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

hborla commented Feb 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

hborla commented Feb 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

groue commented Feb 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading