Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add missing generic constraints #101504

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

ericstj
Copy link
Member

@ericstj ericstj commented Apr 24, 2024

In dotnet/sdk#40230 I added generic constraint checking to APICompat.

This fixes the places in runtime that were missing those. cc @jkotas @terrajobst

Note the suppressions in comparison to last release are commented out until we have an APICompat that validates the new rule in runtime.

@ericstj ericstj requested a review from ViktorHofer April 24, 2024 17:24
Copy link

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

@ericstj ericstj added breaking-change Issue or PR that represents a breaking API or functional change over a prerelease. and removed new-api-needs-documentation labels Apr 24, 2024
@dotnet-policy-service dotnet-policy-service bot added the needs-breaking-change-doc-created Breaking changes need an issue opened with https://github.com/dotnet/docs/issues/new?template=dotnet label Apr 24, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

Added needs-breaking-change-doc-created label because this PR has the breaking-change label.

When you commit this breaking change:

  1. Create and link to this PR and the issue a matching issue in the dotnet/docs repo using the breaking change documentation template, then remove this needs-breaking-change-doc-created label.
  2. Ask a committer to mail the .NET Breaking Change Notification DL.

Tagging @dotnet/compat for awareness of the breaking change.

@@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ public abstract class Instrument<T> : Instrument where T : struct
public ReadOnlySpan<System.Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair<string, object?>> Tags { get { throw null; } }
public T Value { get { throw null; } }
}
public delegate void MeasurementCallback<T>(Instrument instrument, T measurement, ReadOnlySpan<System.Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair<string, object?>> tags, object? state);
public delegate void MeasurementCallback<T>(Instrument instrument, T measurement, ReadOnlySpan<System.Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair<string, object?>> tags, object? state) where T : struct;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are all of these internal/non-public types?

Adding a constraint is a binary breaking, so just wanting to double check. -- notably, changing struct to unmanaged is binary compatible, but may not be source compatible

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks to me like they're all impacting the ref assembly, so users calling these methods from unconstrained or less constrained APIs will break on roll forward.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These are all public types. I've marked this change breaking. The constraints were already present in the runtime so I believe folks would have already observed runtime errors if they were violating the constraint.

System.TypeLoadException: GenericArguments[0], 'System.String', on 'System.Diagnostics.Metrics.MeasurementCallback`1[T]' violates the constraint of type parameter 'T'.
   at Program.<Main>$(String[] args)
   at System.RuntimeMethodHandle.InvokeMethod(Object target, Void** arguments, Signature sig, Boolean isConstructor)
   at System.Reflection.MethodBaseInvoker.InvokeDirectByRefWithFewArgs(Object obj, Span`1 copyOfArgs, BindingFlags invokeAttr)

If we don't want to add the source breaking for any of these we should remove the runtime constraint.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The constraints were already present in the runtime so I believe folks would have already observed runtime errors if they were violating the constraint.

👍. I was definitely more concerned about binary breaks, I think source breaks are fine particularly given that a TypeLoadException was already occurring.

@@ -2492,7 +2492,7 @@ public abstract partial class Enum : System.ValueType, System.IComparable, Syste
public string ToString([System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.StringSyntaxAttribute("EnumFormat")] string? format) { throw null; }
[System.ObsoleteAttribute("The provider argument is not used. Use ToString(String) instead.")]
public string ToString([System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.StringSyntaxAttribute("EnumFormat")] string? format, System.IFormatProvider? provider) { throw null; }
public static bool TryFormat<TEnum>(TEnum value, System.Span<char> destination, out int charsWritten, [System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.StringSyntaxAttribute("EnumFormat")] System.ReadOnlySpan<char> format = default(System.ReadOnlySpan<char>)) where TEnum : struct { throw null; }
public static bool TryFormat<TEnum>(TEnum value, System.Span<char> destination, out int charsWritten, [System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.StringSyntaxAttribute("EnumFormat")] System.ReadOnlySpan<char> format = default(System.ReadOnlySpan<char>)) where TEnum : struct, System.Enum { throw null; }
Copy link
Member

@jkotas jkotas Apr 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this should be removed in the implementation instead. Notice that TryParse APIs on this type do not have the Enum constraint.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@stephentoub what do you think? You added the API with the constraint in 62f3eb2

Copy link
Member Author

@ericstj ericstj Apr 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As with above this already fails at runtime already with:

System.Security.VerificationException: Method System.Enum.TryFormat: type argument 'System.DateTime' violates the constraint of type parameter 'TEnum'.

The unconstrained generic methods (like Parse and TryParse) fail with:

System.ArgumentException: Type provided must be an Enum. (Parameter 'TEnum')

Copy link
Member

@terrajobst terrajobst Apr 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We approved it with the constraint but I believe this was because it was proposed like that and it made sense to us. Not having the constraint seems fine.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, I'll remove the constraints from both ref and source and ensure that this API checks the T and throws an argument exception then (unless @stephentoub mentions otherwise).

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ public sealed partial class ByteEqualityComparer : System.Collections.Generic.Eq
public override int GetHashCode() { throw null; }
public override int GetHashCode(byte b) { throw null; }
}
public sealed partial class EnumEqualityComparer<T> : System.Collections.Generic.EqualityComparer<T>, System.Runtime.Serialization.ISerializable where T : struct
public sealed partial class EnumEqualityComparer<T> : System.Collections.Generic.EqualityComparer<T>, System.Runtime.Serialization.ISerializable where T : struct, System.Enum
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is not exposed publicly in reference assembly.

@@ -362,17 +362,17 @@ public sealed partial class ComObject : System.Runtime.InteropServices.IDynamicI
System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.VirtualMethodTableInfo System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.IUnmanagedVirtualMethodTableProvider.GetVirtualMethodTableInfoForKey(System.Type type) { throw null; }
}
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.CustomMarshallerAttribute(typeof(System.Exception), System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.MarshalMode.UnmanagedToManagedOut, typeof(System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.ExceptionAsDefaultMarshaller<>))]
public static partial class ExceptionAsDefaultMarshaller<T> where T : struct
public static partial class ExceptionAsDefaultMarshaller<T> where T : unmanaged
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jkoritzinsky let me know that for these we want the constraints here.

Any type that doesn't follow the : unmanaged constraints will have unexpected runtime behaviors

{
public static T ConvertToUnmanaged(System.Exception e) { throw null; }
}
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.CustomMarshallerAttribute(typeof(System.Exception), System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.MarshalMode.UnmanagedToManagedOut, typeof(System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.ExceptionAsHResultMarshaller<>))]
public static partial class ExceptionAsHResultMarshaller<T> where T : struct
public static partial class ExceptionAsHResultMarshaller<T> where T : unmanaged, System.Numerics.INumber<T>
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Currently fails at runtime with

System.TypeLoadException: GenericArguments[0], 'MyStruct', on 'System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.ExceptionAsHResultMarshaller`1[T]' violates the constraint of type parameter 'T'.

{
public static T ConvertToUnmanaged(System.Exception e) { throw null; }
}
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.CustomMarshallerAttribute(typeof(System.Exception), System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.MarshalMode.UnmanagedToManagedOut, typeof(System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.ExceptionAsNaNMarshaller<>))]
public static partial class ExceptionAsNaNMarshaller<T> where T : struct
public static partial class ExceptionAsNaNMarshaller<T> where T : unmanaged, System.Numerics.IFloatingPointIeee754<T>
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Currently fails at runtime with:

System.TypeLoadException: GenericArguments[0], 'MyStruct', on 'System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshalling.ExceptionAsNaNMarshaller`1[T]'

@ViktorHofer
Copy link
Member

You might want to add the APICompat update from #101378 into this PR.

@ericstj
Copy link
Member Author

ericstj commented Apr 24, 2024

You might want to add the APICompat update from #101378 into this PR.

Oh interesting. I wasn't aware that had already flowed. Maybe I'll just collapse this into the darc PR to reduce the churn, once I get consensus on the plan.

@ericstj
Copy link
Member Author

ericstj commented Apr 25, 2024

Closing this in favor of fixing the ingestion PR where these errors are already popping. That lets me also checking the suppressions which I had to comment out here.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 25, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
area-Infrastructure-libraries breaking-change Issue or PR that represents a breaking API or functional change over a prerelease. needs-breaking-change-doc-created Breaking changes need an issue opened with https://github.com/dotnet/docs/issues/new?template=dotnet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants