`definition(String, m)` returns `nothing` for a closure when the enclosing function has arguments

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#162 0 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
3/5
Tempo stimato
1-2 giorni
Idoneità per principianti
75/100
Tipo di issue
Bug
Chiarezza
Specificata chiaramente
Stato di attività
Attiva
Stack tecnologico
julia
Ambito
devtools

Direzione di ricerca

Start in src/utils.jl at is_func_expr(ex, meth::Method), then run repro.jl with include on the stated Julia and CodeTracking versions to reproduce the parameterized-closure failures. Trace the backward scan, gensym name matching, and argument comparison. Done means definition(String, m) finds the source for all arrow and do-block closures, including those inside functions with parameters.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

definition(String, m) for a closure's method (a do block or a -> inside a call) returns nothing whenever the function it is written inside has parameters. With no parameters it works. The distinction is the enclosing function's argument list, not the closure form or whether the enclosing function is short- or long-form.

Repro (repro.jl, run with include; Julia 1.13.0, CodeTracking 3.0.2, no Revise needed):

using CodeTracking
returnit(f) = f
# short form, enclosing has no args / has args; arrow / do
s_noargs_arrow()  = returnit(y -> y + 1)
s_args_arrow(x)   = returnit(y -> y + x)
s_noargs_do()     = returnit() do y
    y + 1
end
s_args_do(x)      = returnit() do y
    y + x
end
# long form
function l_noargs_arrow()
    return returnit(y -> y + 1)
end
function l_args_arrow(x)
    return returnit(y -> y + x)
end
function l_noargs_do()
    return returnit() do y
        y + 1
    end
end
function l_args_do(x)
    return returnit() do y
        y + x
    end
end
for (make, args) in ((s_noargs_arrow, ()), (s_args_arrow, (1,)), (s_noargs_do, ()), (s_args_do, (1,)),
                     (l_noargs_arrow, ()), (l_args_arrow, (1,)), (l_noargs_do, ()), (l_args_do, (1,)))
    m = only(methods(make(args...)))
    d = CodeTracking.definition(String, m)
    println(rpad(string(make), 16), " closure at line ", lpad(m.line, 2), "  -> ", d === nothing ? "nothing" : "found (starts at line $(d[2]))")
end

Output:

s_noargs_arrow   closure at line  4  -> found (starts at line 4)
s_args_arrow     closure at line  5  -> nothing
s_noargs_do      closure at line  7  -> found (starts at line 5)
s_args_do        closure at line 10  -> nothing
l_noargs_arrow   closure at line 14  -> found (starts at line 12)
l_args_arrow     closure at line 17  -> nothing
l_noargs_do      closure at line 21  -> found (starts at line 18)
l_args_do        closure at line 26  -> nothing

Where it happens — is_func_expr(ex, meth::Method) in src/utils.jl:

  • The backward scan from the closure's line reaches the enclosing definition, and the name check accepts it on purpose: fname === strip_gensym(meth.name) maps #l_args_do##0 to l_args_do. So far so good — the enclosing definition is the text that contains the closure.
  • It then "matches the argnames": exargs are the enclosing definition's parameters (x), zipped against Base.method_argnames(meth)[2:end], which are the closure's (y). x !== y → return false. When the enclosing function has no parameters the zip is empty and the check passes, which is why the noargs rows succeed.

So for a gensym-named method the argument check is comparing two different functions' parameter lists. A closure whose parameter names happen to coincide positionally with the enclosing function's would pass by accident.

Suggested fix: when meth.name is a gensym and the expression matched via strip_gensym, skip the argname comparison (the enclosing definition is the right answer, and the caller has meth.line to find the lambda inside it), or locate the ->/do node within ex and compare its parameters instead.

Downstream effect: TypedSyntax calls definition(String, m) first, so Cthulhu's source view cannot show any closure written inside a function with parameters — e.g. stable_hash_helper(x::Tuple, hash_state, context, ::StructTypes.ArrayType) in StableHashTraits, whose do nested_hash_state block reports couldn't retrieve source of (::var"#stable_hash_helper##4#…")(nested_hash_state). Related earlier reports: #102 (added -> matching), #132 (closed; a lambda returned as data, which is a different case — here the file and line are known and correct).

🤖 Filed using Claude Code. The reproduction was run locally on the stated versions and the output is quoted verbatim.

Lingua principale
Julia
Stelle
150
Fork
12
Nessuna PR unita negli ultimi 30g

Preparare l'ambiente

Questo progetto non fornisce container di sviluppo, Dockerfile né guida per i contributori, quindi l'ambiente è a tuo carico: parti dal suo README e consulta la nostra guida al primo contributo per i passaggi generali.

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di JuliaDebug/CodeTracking.jl

Tutte le issue di JuliaDebug/CodeTracking.jl

Issue simili

Altre issue su Julia

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.