Handle move blocks within a module which is changing the index #30232
Conversation
This file contains 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
Add a method for checking if the From and To addresses in a move statement are only changing the indexes of modules relative to the statement module. This is needed because move statement nested within the module will be able to match against both the From and To addresses, causing cycles in the order of move operations.
Implied moves in nested modules were being skipped
jbardin
force-pushed
the
jbardin/module-move-re-index
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7587a28
to
b23595f
Compare
jbardin
added
the
1.1-backport
jbardin
force-pushed
the
jbardin/module-move-re-index
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a4cba4d
to
99704ee
Compare
alisdair
approved these changes
Dec 22, 2021
| // ancestor module is only changing the index of a nested module, any | ||
| // nested move statements are going to match both the From and To address | ||
| // when the base name is not changing, causing a cycle in the order of | ||
| // operations. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had a bit of trouble understanding the previous block of code and its comment without the context of this paragraph here. I think it would have been easier to follow if this paragraph was before line 247, setting the scene for why we care about ancestor modules.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point, I can move that around and group the checks together.
Changing only the index on a nested module will cause all nested moves to create cycles, since their full addresses will match both the From and To addresses. When building the dependency graph, check if the parent is only changing the index of the containing module, and prevent the backwards edge for the move.
jbardin
force-pushed
the
jbardin/module-move-re-index
branch
from
7a5c1f3
to
75ef61c
Compare
|
I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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.
When a move statement is only changing the index of a module, any moves within that module would result in cycles, because both the absolute
FromandToaddresses would match both of the parent module'sFromandToaddress.For example, changing the index of a module named
countresults in a afrom->toof:And changing the count of a resource nested within
module.countresults in:Because
module.count[*]matches both theFromandToaddresses of the parent, the edges would be added in both directions resulting in a cycle.The graph we actually want in this case looks like
with a connection only from the inner move to the outer move, which matches the same order of operations when the outer module is changing the name entirely. We achieve this by checking if the dependent move statement is only changing the module index with a new
from.MoveModuleReIndex(to)method, and skip adding the graph edge.Fixes #30208
While not contributing to the cycle, it was noticed in #30208 that
impliedMoveStatementswas not correctly calling itself recursively, which is also fixed and tested by this PR.