LuaLS / LuaLS/lua-language-server

Table type annotations

未关闭
#3,295 1 条评论 2 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

主要语言
Lua
星标
4.4k
派生
442
PR 合并指标
30 天内没有已合并 PR

描述

Hello everyone.

I've defined a field as table<MyStates, BaseState>, but the analyzer doesn't complain when I assign a table with a completely different structure to it.

---@class BaseState
local BaseState = {}

---@enum MyStates
local States = {
    GAME = 1,
    GAME_OVER = 2,
}

---@class MyStateMachine
---@field private _states table<MyStates, BaseState>
local MyStateMachine = {}
MyStateMachine.__index = MyStateMachine

---@param states table<MyStates, BaseState>
function MyStateMachine:setStates(states)
    self._states = states
end

function tmp()
    -- Assigning a table with a different annotation directly. The analyzer doesn't complain.
    MyStateMachine._states = {
        ['kek'] = 69
    }
    -- Passing a table with a different annotation to a method. The analyzer doesn't complain.
    MyStateMachine:setStates({
        ['kek'] = 69,
    })
    -- The analyzer correctly complains about a number assignment.
    -- MyStateMachine._states = 69
    -- The analyzer correctly complains about passing a number.
    -- MyStateMachine:setStates(2)
end

As you can see, the type checker only seems to validate that the value is a table, but doesn't validate the internal key and value types for table<MyStates, BaseState>. Is this the expected behavior, or am I missing something? Is there a way to enforce stricter type checking for the contents of generic tables?

贡献指南

打开贡献指南

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

调研方向

使用提供的 Lua 示例复现该报告,并检查 language server 的 generic-table 类型检查入口。验证赋值和方法参数是否同时校验键类型和值类型,然后添加或更新覆盖范围,使不兼容的表内容产生诊断,同时继续接受有效的表。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

评估

技术栈
lua
领域
devtools
Issue 类型
缺陷
难度
3/5
预计耗时
1-2 天
活跃度
停滞
描述清晰度
基本清楚
新手友好度
35/100

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。