STALE: Add IOp support for `with(...)` elements. by CyrusNajmabadi · Pull Request #81058 · dotnet/roslyn

CyrusNajmabadi · 2025-11-05T19:53:36Z

Relates to test plan #80613
Closes #80998

…-arguments' into creationArguments

CyrusNajmabadi · 2025-11-05T20:31:31Z

@@ -393,8 +393,17 @@ static void Main()
        var operation = semanticModel.GetOperation(root.DescendantNodes().OfType<CollectionExpressionSyntax>().ToArray()[1]);
        VerifyOperationTree(compilation, operation, """
            ICollectionExpressionOperation (1 elements, ConstructMethod: MyList<System.Int32>..ctor([System.Int32 capacity = 0], [System.String name = "default"])) (OperationKind.CollectionExpression, Type: MyList<System.Int32>) (Syntax: '[with(capacity: 10), 2]')


review with whitespace off.

CyrusNajmabadi · 2025-11-05T20:32:10Z

        {
            EvalStackFrame frame = PushStackFrame();
+            var creationArguments = VisitArguments(operation.CreationArguments, instancePushed: false);
+            PopStackFrame(frame);


it seemed sensible to me to push/pop a frame here independent of the frame for visiting the elements. But i wasn't 100% sure. LMK if this is correct. #Closed

I'm not sure what the decision to keep the frames for the arguments and elements "independent" versus nested like in VisitObjectCreation could impact.

Maybe Aleksey can advise. Otherwise this does need some more research
I suspect we can do await with the split

note: my intent was to match VisitObjectCreation.

note: my intent was to match VisitObjectCreation.

Thanks for the clarification
In that case, would it be an outer frame with an inner frame (push, push, pop, pop) instead of two separate frames (push, pop, push, pop)?

Maybe Aleksey can advise.

See my other comments

CyrusNajmabadi · 2025-11-05T20:33:10Z

        </summary>
      </Comments>
    </Property>
+    <Property Name="CreationArguments" Type="ImmutableArray&lt;IArgumentOperation&gt;">


i went with CreationArguments as i think it's nicely 'generic'. They are the arguments that control the 'creation' of the collection. I didn't really want to be very explicit that they were the 'WithElement' arguments. But i don't feel strongly on this. If people think it should align more closely with the syntax, that's ok with me.

It feels like ConstructArguments to emphasize the connection with ConstructMethod would be reasonable here. However, I also don't feel strongly. :)

CyrusNajmabadi · 2025-11-05T20:33:43Z

@RikkiGibson @jjonescz @333fred ptal.

CyrusNajmabadi · 2025-11-06T18:59:03Z

-            // (12,74): warning CS8620: Argument of type 'T' cannot be used for parameter 'items' of type 'ReadOnlySpan<T?>' in 'MyCollection<T?> MyCollectionBuilder.Create<T?>(ReadOnlySpan<T?> items)' due to differences in the nullability of reference types.
-            //     static IMyCollection<T?> F<T>(ReadOnlySpan<T> items, T arg) => [with(arg), ..items];
-            Diagnostic(ErrorCode.WRN_NullabilityMismatchInArgument, "arg").WithArguments("T", "System.ReadOnlySpan<T?>", "items", "MyCollection<T?> MyCollectionBuilder.Create<T?>(ReadOnlySpan<T?> items)").WithLocation(12, 74));
+            Diagnostic(ErrorCode.ERR_BadCollectionArgumentsArgCount, "with(arg)").WithArguments("Create", "1").WithLocation(12, 69));


note: this now matches CollectionBuilder_SpreadElement_BoxingConversion_A, which also has no nullable warning here. the only error we should report is the bad-with, since we only bind to (ReadOnlySpan<T> items) not (ReadOnlySpan<T> items, T arg) (since arguments can't go at builder end, they must be at the start).

jcouv · 2025-11-06T21:04:16Z

Closes #80998 ?

CyrusNajmabadi · 2025-11-06T21:54:42Z

Assert added in d4da134

AlekseyTs · 2025-11-20T08:06:16Z

Done with review pass (commit 75), only glanced over the test changes #Closed

Code changes

AlekseyTs · 2025-11-20T17:18:21Z

@CyrusNajmabadi It looks like there are legitimate CI failures

AlekseyTs · 2025-11-20T17:56:19Z

+    }
+
+    [Fact]
+    public void ControlFlowBuilder()


ControlFlowBuilder

I think this test should be moved to IOperation tests #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-11-20T17:58:11Z

+                                        IFlowCaptureReferenceOperation: 0 (OperationKind.FlowCaptureReference, Type: System.Int32, IsImplicit) (Syntax: 'ComputeCapacity()')
+                                        InConversion: CommonConversion (Exists: True, IsIdentity: True, IsNumeric: False, IsReference: False, IsUserDefined: False) (MethodSymbol: null)
+                                        OutConversion: CommonConversion (Exists: True, IsIdentity: True, IsNumeric: False, IsReference: False, IsUserDefined: False) (MethodSymbol: null)
+                                      IArgumentOperation (ArgumentKind.Explicit, Matching Parameter: items) (OperationKind.Argument, Type: null, IsImplicit) (Syntax: 'with(ComputeCapacity())')


Explicit

I assume this isn't an explicit argument #Closed

ah. good catch. investigating.

opened issue #81377 to track this.

AlekseyTs · 2025-11-20T18:15:49Z

Done with review pass (commit 83), only glanced over the test changes

AlekseyTs · 2025-11-24T17:41:58Z

@CyrusNajmabadi It looks like there are no sign-offs for this PR. Am I missing something?

CyrusNajmabadi · 2025-11-24T17:51:19Z

I didn't merge this. I have no idea how a merge would even be possible given that there were no sign-offs...

AlekseyTs · 2025-11-24T17:55:50Z

I didn't merge this. I have no idea how a merge would even be possible given that there were no sign-offs...

Let's revert the merge then. Based on GitHub status updates, it merged and deleted the branch on you behalf. If that was not the case, I guess it would be good to understand what happened.

CyrusNajmabadi · 2025-11-26T13:35:12Z

PR continues in #81427

CyrusNajmabadi added 7 commits November 5, 2025 07:22

Add CFG and IOp

ab6f95f

In progress

47ffa73

Fixes

e26f05b

Fix

f781408

Cleanup

f489a02

Cleanup

4fb9888

Fixup test

c5f3662

dotnet-policy-service Bot added VSCode Needs UX Triage Needs API Review Needs to be reviewed by the API review council labels Nov 5, 2025

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/features/collection-expression…

13baeda

…-arguments' into creationArguments

CyrusNajmabadi commented Nov 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Operations/CSharpOperationFactory.cs Outdated

CyrusNajmabadi commented Nov 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

CyrusNajmabadi marked this pull request as ready for review November 5, 2025 20:33

CyrusNajmabadi requested review from a team as code owners November 5, 2025 20:33

CyrusNajmabadi added the Area-Compilers label Nov 5, 2025

CyrusNajmabadi added 3 commits November 5, 2025 12:34

Remove prototype

e431b33

Pass along error bit

d6078c5

Update test

d3946ca

CyrusNajmabadi commented Nov 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

jcouv added the Feature - Collection Arguments Collection expression with() arguments label Nov 6, 2025

333fred reviewed Nov 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

CyrusNajmabadi added 2 commits November 6, 2025 13:52

Assert syntax

51b41e2

Add assert

d4da134

AlekseyTs reviewed Nov 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/CollectionExpressionTests.cs Outdated

CyrusNajmabadi added 8 commits November 20, 2025 11:01

More CFG work

9f12cd5

Add new iop type

7d8fec2

Thread through and update tests

8847d30

Thread through and update tests

8393c63

Update tests

033fa45

Update tests

393762f

Update tests

dfe52e6

Update tests

db3fba0

AlekseyTs reviewed Nov 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/ControlFlowGraphBuilder.cs Outdated

CyrusNajmabadi added 5 commits November 20, 2025 20:15

Move to end

70a5174

Update public api

bddf433

Move tests

c59c928

Renames

7a67ee4

Renames

ad1e9c2

CyrusNajmabadi merged commit 62026b2 into dotnet:features/collection-expression-arguments Nov 24, 2025
26 of 29 checks passed

CyrusNajmabadi deleted the creationArguments branch November 24, 2025 14:13

CyrusNajmabadi restored the creationArguments branch November 24, 2025 19:27

CyrusNajmabadi changed the title ~~Add IOp support for with(...) elements.~~ DEADPR: Add IOp support for with(...) elements. Nov 26, 2025

CyrusNajmabadi changed the title ~~DEADPR: Add IOp support for with(...) elements.~~ STALE: Add IOp support for with(...) elements. Nov 26, 2025

Conversation

CyrusNajmabadi commented Nov 5, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

CyrusNajmabadi Nov 5, 2025 • edited by jcouv Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jcouv Nov 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

CyrusNajmabadi commented Nov 5, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jcouv commented Nov 6, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

CyrusNajmabadi commented Nov 6, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs commented Nov 20, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs commented Nov 20, 2025

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs Nov 20, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs Nov 20, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

CyrusNajmabadi Nov 26, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs commented Nov 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs commented Nov 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

CyrusNajmabadi commented Nov 24, 2025

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs commented Nov 24, 2025

Uh oh!

CyrusNajmabadi commented Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

CyrusNajmabadi commented Nov 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

CyrusNajmabadi Nov 5, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

jcouv Nov 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Nov 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

CyrusNajmabadi Nov 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Nov 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading