SR-10776: Fix runtime crash of calling XMLDocument's var name: String?
#2316
Conversation
YOCKOW
changed the title
var name: String?var name: String?
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
I'll still test it. |
|
Sorry, I have force-pushed the branch... |
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
@swift-ci please test linux |
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
Failure on Linux is due to mismatched curly brackets in "TestXMLDocument.swift". It doesn't occur on "YOCKOW:sr-10776" branch. Should be rebased or need some modification? Failure Summary/home/buildnode/jenkins/workspace/swift-corelibs-foundation-PR-Linux/swift-corelibs-foundation/TestFoundation/TestXMLDocument.swift:653:13: error: declaration is only valid at file scope
06:14:54 fileprivate extension XMLNode {
06:14:54 ^
06:14:54 /home/buildnode/jenkins/workspace/swift-corelibs-foundation-PR-Linux/swift-corelibs-foundation/TestFoundation/TestXMLDocument.swift:676:1: error: expected '}' in class
06:14:54
06:14:54 ^
06:14:54 /home/buildnode/jenkins/workspace/swift-corelibs-foundation-PR-Linux/swift-corelibs-foundation/TestFoundation/TestXMLDocument.swift:10:44: note: to match this opening '{'
06:14:54 class TestXMLDocument : LoopbackServerTest {
06:14:54 |
|
@YOCKOW Do a rebase and squash the commits then we can rerun the test. |
|
@spevans Thank you for the advice. Fixed the bracket problem and did a rebase. |
|
@swift-ci test |
|
Jenkins doesn’t report the status of latest tests... |
ghost
mentioned this pull request
Although Libxml2's `struct _xmlDoc` has a member named `name` that indicates name/filename/URI of the document, `var name` of `XMLDocument` on Darwin returns always nil. This commit makes the behavior the same with Darwin.
|
Rebased again because
|
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
It is merged. |
|
@YOCKOW Thank you for your patience; I'm focusing on XML for the next short while as well. |
|
@millenomi |
Runtime crash occurs when
XMLDocument's computed propertyvar name: String?is called. This PR fixes the issue.Resolves SR-10776.
Note: This PR would conflict with PR#2287 and PR#2313. That's why it is a draft at the moment. This branch will be rebased after they are merged.EDITED
#2287 has been merged. This PR seems not to conflict with #2313 after checking again. Sorry.