Experiment: Make TypeOps avoid symbols if they widen to another avoided symbol - #26893
Draft
jchyb wants to merge 2 commits into
Draft
Experiment: Make TypeOps avoid symbols if they widen to another avoided symbol#26893jchyb wants to merge 2 commits into
jchyb wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
https://github.com/VirtusLab/community-build3/actions/runs/32736041819/job/97458970426: softwaremill/macwire and foldables-io/skunk-tables fail with this... needs rework, I'll try to minimize those 2 since both reference inline errors (so hopefully I'll get some more test cases out of this) |
jchyb
force-pushed
the
fix-26785-opaque-inline-regression
branch
from
August 27, 2026 10:31
eacfd30 to
0f37313
Compare
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Brings back previously removed behavior for TypeOps.avoid. Mostly want to check CI/ community build for now. Will make a detailed description later.
Fixes #26785
Have you relied on LLM-based tools in this contribution?
Yes, and I checked the output by ...
No
How was the solution tested?
New automated tests (including the issue's reproducer, if applicable)
Covered by existing tests (this is a refactoring)
Non-code change, no tests needed
Manual tests because writing automated tests is impractical, described below (in detail)