Propagate type aliases from base to derived contracts #2693
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
0xalpharush
reviewed
Apr 1, 2025
| # We keep parse_ in the name just to keep the naming convention even if we already parsed them initially. | ||
| # Here we only update the current contract type_aliases_as_dict with the fathers' values | ||
| # It's useful to keep using the same pattern anyway as we know all the fathers have been analyzed | ||
| for father in self._contract.inheritance_reverse: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is reversed right? I think the most recent ancestor should take priority
There was a problem hiding this comment.
type alias declarations can not be shadowed or you get an identifier already declared error so i believe you get the same result
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fix #2680
We were not propagating the type aliases to derived contracts and when used they were not found by the
find_variablefunction. In the issue fixed a structure with the same name of the type alias was found by thefind_variablefunction hence a seemingly unrelated error.