Checking for methodset existance #4126
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
marco6
force-pushed
the
check-for-methodset-existance
branch
from
94f79c9
to
0e05885
Compare
|
/cc @aykevl |
aykevl
reviewed
Mar 13, 2024
|
Any progress on this? I'm also having this issue |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds a check for the existence of the methodset in the interpreter implementation of typeasserts. This is necessary since this field is optional.
This should be the last bit that fixes #3788 since pull #3986 only covers
XXX.(any)cases and still crashes if the interface has methods. As such, it should also fix #4079.As a last note, I also tried a different approach here where I forced the methodset to be mandatory as I felt it was more robust, but the simplicity of these 4 lines seems to be unmatched.