Improve the test for creating protected method accessors for inlines#25865
Merged
Conversation
tgodzik
approved these changes
Apr 20, 2026
tgodzik
added
the
backport:nominated
WojciechMazur
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 20, 2026
…25865) Fixes #25542 In the regressive commit, I failed to predict that the accessed protected definition in the inline could be owner by another, unrelated instance of the class. The accessors are generated correctly for these cases now. ## How much have you relied on LLM-based tools in this contribution? For figuring out how the self symbols in `Idents` are recognized in the rest of the compiler. ## How was the solution tested? Added the regression test from the issue. Unsuccessfully tried to figure out another test that would break the added check. [Cherry-picked 41f7635]
WojciechMazur
added
backport:accepted
WojciechMazur
added
backport:done
mbovel
pushed a commit
to mbovel/dotty
that referenced
this pull request
May 4, 2026
…cala#25865) Fixes scala#25542 In the regressive commit, I failed to predict that the accessed protected definition in the inline could be owner by another, unrelated instance of the class. The accessors are generated correctly for these cases now. ## How much have you relied on LLM-based tools in this contribution? For figuring out how the self symbols in `Idents` are recognized in the rest of the compiler. ## How was the solution tested? Added the regression test from the issue. Unsuccessfully tried to figure out another test that would break the added check.
bishabosha
pushed a commit
to dotty-staging/dotty
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2026
…cala#25865) Fixes scala#25542 In the regressive commit, I failed to predict that the accessed protected definition in the inline could be owner by another, unrelated instance of the class. The accessors are generated correctly for these cases now. ## How much have you relied on LLM-based tools in this contribution? For figuring out how the self symbols in `Idents` are recognized in the rest of the compiler. ## How was the solution tested? Added the regression test from the issue. Unsuccessfully tried to figure out another test that would break the added check.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Fixes #25542
In the regressive commit, I failed to predict that the accessed protected definition in the inline could be owner by another, unrelated instance of the class. The accessors are generated correctly for these cases now.
How much have you relied on LLM-based tools in this contribution?
For figuring out how the self symbols in
Identsare recognized in the rest of the compiler.How was the solution tested?
Added the regression test from the issue. Unsuccessfully tried to figure out another test that would break the added check.