refactor(parser): move mapping key type validation to semantic analysis #574
Conversation
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
Contributor
mablr
commented
Oct 13, 2025
mablr
commented
- Removed the mapping key type validation from the parser and implemented it in the semantic analysis phase.
- Added specific mapping-key-type parsing method and updated accordingly mapping-type parsing method
- Added a new method to check if a type is a valid mapping key type.
- Introduced ui tests to ensure that only elementary or user-defined types can be used as key types in mappings.
- Removed the mapping key type validation from the parser and implemented it in the semantic analysis phase. - Added specific mapping-key-type parsing method and updated accordingly mapping-type parsing method - Added a new method to check if a type is a valid mapping key type. - Introduced ui test to ensure that only elementary or user-defined types can be used as key types in mappings.
- Removed the previous inline validation for mapping key types and centralized it in a dedicated method within the TypeChecker. - Updated the type checking logic to allow only elementary types, user-defined types, contract types, or enums as valid mapping keys. - Updated tests
onbjerg
reviewed
Oct 14, 2025
onbjerg
requested changes
Oct 15, 2025
onbjerg
reviewed
Oct 15, 2025
| mapping(E => uint) m1; | ||
| mapping(U => uint) m2; | ||
| mapping(L.E1 => uint) m3; | ||
| mapping(uint[] => uint) m4; //~ ERROR: expected `=>`, found `[` |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the PR overall looks good to me, but I'm mulling over this, I understand that this is technically incorrect syntax but part of me wishes this was a more helpful message. no action needed right now as I'm still figuring out if we want it like this or not
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see your point.
This line is actually an edge case because an elementary-type is successfully parsed before falling to parse =>:
mapping(uint[] => uint) m4;but the following:
mapping([] => uint) m4;would return a more insightful error message:
error: expected one of elementary type name or path, found `[`
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #574 will degrade performances by 5.3%Comparing Summary
Benchmarks breakdown
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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.