ProgramUnit.resolve_typebound_var: raise error if top-level parent is not declared #325
Conversation
|
Documentation for this branch can be viewed at https://sites.ecmwf.int/docs/loki/325/index.html |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #325 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 95.14% 95.19% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 167 168 +1
Lines 35374 35717 +343
==========================================
+ Hits 33657 34001 +344
+ Misses 1717 1716 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
loki/tests/test_subroutine.py
Outdated
| """.strip() | ||
|
|
||
| source = Sourcefile.from_source(fcode, frontend=frontend, xmods=[tmp_path]) | ||
| # routine = Subroutine.from_source(fcode_routine, frontend=frontend, xmods=[tmp_path], definitions=source.definitions) #source['some_routine'] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, this looks great and is indeed very useful and makes things safer. I've left one question on the test, because I don;t quite understand when/what is invalid, and what is not. There's also a rogue commented line still in test - but once those are addressed, this is GTG, I think.
loki/tests/test_subroutine.py
Outdated
| # This does not throw an error as the use-case of incomplete type definitions | ||
| # may well require working with incomplete type definitions | ||
| tt_invalid_val = routine.resolve_typebound_var('tt%invalid%val') | ||
| assert tt_invalid_val == 'tt%invalid%val' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here. The type of tt is known so it can be safely inferred that tt%invalid is in deed invalid. If the type of tt were deferred, I'd agree, but it is attached in this case, no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, I see your point. I was thinking of situations where we don't have the type definition and overlooked the fact that we actually have the complete definition here. Let me see if I can quickly add an error in this case without harming the situation where we don't have the full type definition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great. Many thanks for addressing this.
…typedef is available
mlange05
added
the
ready for merge
This fixes #307.
Piggy-backed is a small fix with test for missing enrichment between modules within the same source file, reported in #161.