Pass existing location to children prop#7540
Conversation
rescript
@rescript/darwin-arm64
@rescript/darwin-x64
@rescript/linux-arm64
@rescript/linux-x64
@rescript/win32-x64
commit: |
|
@mediremi could you try this one out please? |
| addValueReference ComponentAsProp.res:12:24 --> ComponentAsProp.res:12:13 | ||
| addValueReference ComponentAsProp.res:13:16 --> React.res:3:0 | ||
| addValueReference ComponentAsProp.res:11:14 --> ComponentAsProp.res:6:34 | ||
| addValueReference ComponentAsProp.res:9:6 --> ComponentAsProp.res:6:12 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zth, any thoughts on whether this is problematic or not?
| | _generic -> module_access_name config "Elements" | ||
| in | ||
| Exp.apply | ||
| Exp.apply ~loc:child.pexp_loc |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like this change is responsible for the changes in the dead code analysis. But this change does not seem necessary to fix the location issue in error messages.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have an explanation as to why this would happen. More non-dummy locations should lead to more value dependencies found in the dead code analysis, which just traverses the typed ast.
Unless, somehow, this change affects the locations produced during type inference.
|
@nojaf I've tested this PR on my project and it fixes the issues I encountered 🎉 Thanks for fixing this 🙏 |
| addValueReference ComponentAsProp.res:12:24 --> ComponentAsProp.res:12:13 | ||
| addValueReference ComponentAsProp.res:13:16 --> React.res:3:0 | ||
| addValueReference ComponentAsProp.res:11:14 --> ComponentAsProp.res:6:34 | ||
| addValueReference ComponentAsProp.res:9:6 --> ComponentAsProp.res:6:12 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A few more of these missing - perhaps another exp apply with loc?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@cristianoc, I'm not entirely sure how this works, but since addValueReference ComponentAsProp.res:9:6 --> ComponentAsProp.res:6:12 is mentioned a few lines above in this file, could this mean that it's fine and there's no risk of duplication?
Or do you think we should aim for no changes in this file? Does it matter?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh removing duplications is pretty likely OK. If that's all there is, I think we can safely push on.
4 participants
Fixes #7537
Fixes #7538