[Groundwork for #1201] Rename or remove clashing variables #1239
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
These variables are actually only used to set up some other variables, so we move them inside those variables’ declarations. The motivation for this change is that it’s groundwork for removing the Quick testing framework using an automated migrator tool (#1201). The migrator that I’m writing will pull all `spec` / `describe` / `context` level local variables to a single namespace for the whole file, so we need to avoid clashes. The easiest way in this particular case is to just remove the variables.
The motivation here is the same as dcf3e13 — avoiding clashes when the variables are pulled out to a file-wide namespace.
Same motivation as ef79b44.
Same motivation as ef79b44.
Same motivation as ef79b44.
Same motivation as ef79b44.
Same motivation as ef79b44.
The motivation for this change is that it’s groundwork for removing the Quick testing framework using an automated migrator tool (#1201). The migrator that I’m writing will pull all `spec` / `describe` / `context` level local variables outside of the class declaration and into fileprivate global variables. But if we let the migrator hoist this particular variable to a global with the same name, then it’ll be shadowed by XCTestCase’s `name` property, which we don’t want.
lawrence-forooghian
force-pushed
the
1201-rename-clashing-identifiers
branch
from
b0e3190 to
f4c0e1f
Compare
lawrence-forooghian
changed the title
lawrence-forooghian
requested review from
maratal,
QuintinWillison,
ben-xD and
lukasz-szyszkowski
lukasz-szyszkowski
approved these changes
Nov 29, 2021
maratal
approved these changes
Nov 29, 2021
@lukasz-szyszkowski I'd quite like to keep the scope of this PR limited to just the necessary refactorings, since it's already quite a large one as it is. Perhaps you'd like to create an issue if you think it's a problem worth fixing? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What does this do?
Removes or renames some variables at the
spec/describe/contextlevel.Does it change the behaviour of the test suite?
No, it's just a refactor (moving variable declarations inside other ones, or renaming variables).
Why are we doing this?
It’s groundwork for removing the Quick testing framework using an automated migrator tool (#1201). The migrator that I’m writing will pull all
spec/describe/contextlevel variable and function declarations in a file into a flattened file-wide list of global declarations. This might lead to clashes if multiple contexts use the same variable name. So we rename / remove things to avoid these clashes.Note
I had hoped to avoid this step, by making the migrator automatically rename variables to avoid clashes. I had a solution almost working with
swift-refactorbut for some reason that tool wasn't correctly updating variable references inside helper function declarations. I decided not to investigate this further, since it would probably end up taking a lot of time for something that could be fixed relatively quickly by hand. It's a shame, though.