Allowed non-this, non-super code before super call in derived classes with property initializers #29374
Conversation
Fixes microsoft#8277. It feels wrong to put a new `forEachChild` loop in the checker, though in the vast majority of user files this will be a very quick one. Is there a better way to check for a reference to `super` or `this`?
|
tests/baselines/reference/derivedClassSuperProperties.errors.txt
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…boundaries
```ts
function () {
return this;
}
```
It was immediately going to `ts.forEachChild` so the statement itself wasn't being counted as a new `this` scope.
tests/baselines/reference/derivedClassSuperProperties.errors.txt
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
As per discussion in the issue, it would be ideal to consider any block that always ends up calling to super() the equivalent of a root-level super() statement. This would be valid:
```ts
foo = 1;
constructor() {
condition() ? super(1) : super(0);
this.foo;
}
```
...as it would compile to the equivalent of:
```ts
function () {
condition() ? super(1) : super(0);
this.foo = 1;
this.foo;
}
That change would a bit more intense and I'm very timid, so leaving it out of this PR. In the meantime the requirement is that the super() statement must itself be root-level.
|
cc @ahejlsberg for review |
|
Ping @ahejlsberg - is there anything that needs to be done here? It'd be nice to have this in 😄 |
|
Correction: ping, @weswigham? |
|
@rbuckton Is there anything else that @JoshuaKGoldberg can do to move this forward? |
|
@typescript-bot user test this inline |
Nope, it looks ready to go actually, and just in time for 4.6 beta. |
|
Fantastic, thanks so much for the reviews & merge @rbuckton! If any issues come out of this change I'm available to try to fix, if that's helpful. |
|
The longest-living PR I have ever seen. 😳 |
|
YES!!! Thank you!🎉 🎉 🎉 |
|
🥳🎉🎉 |
|
Amazing work and perseverance. Awesome! |
|
Man! Awesome. The perseverance! 🎉 |
|
Does it mean that now super is going to be invoked the first time never mind where he is located in the constructor? |
…rosoft/TypeScript#29374 The minimum TypeScript dependency is lifted to 4.6.2
|
Congrats, apparently the cake did it's job! 🎉 |
|
Guy you've made it reddit programmer humor front page! https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/waa0lz/if_youre_ever_frustrated_that_your_github_prs/ |
|
grats on the PR |
|
Congrats !! Happy for you! |
Starts on #8277 by allowing the non-
this, non-supercode to be root-level statements in the constructor. This will now be allowed:It feels wrong to put a newforEachChildloop in the checker, though in the vast majority of user files this will be a very quick one. Is there a better way to check for a reference tosuperorthis?Edit 2/28/2020: I've
mostlyresolved the merge conflicts introduced by both#private fields &useDefineForClassFields, but I'm not confident my approach is still a valid one. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could confirm I'm on the right track!Oh, and✔️gulp runtestspasses locally (on Windows). I'll try a Mac to see if there's some odd encoding/whitespace behavior with the failing test...Edit 3/11/2021: It seems this is fairly close to merging.
Edit 1/13/2022: I bought this PR a birthday cake for its third birthday. https://twitter.com/JoshuaKGoldberg/status/1481654056422567944