Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Adds fixture tests to demonstrate an issue in changing PropertyStore to always have a Store effect on its object operand, regardless of the operand type. The issue is that if we're doing a PropertyStore on a nested value, that has be considered a transitive mutation of the parent object:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = 'value'; // this has to be a mutation of `x`
```
Fix in the next PR.
[ghstack-poisoned]
We've occassionally added logic that extends mutable ranges into InferReactiveScopeVariables to handle a specific case, but inevitably discover that the logic needs to be part of the InferMutableRanges fixpoint loop. That happened in the past with extending the range of phi operands to account for subsequent mutations, which I moved to InferMutableRanges a while back. But InferReactiveScopeVariables also has logic to group co-mutations in the same scope, which also extends ranges of the co-mutating operands to have the same end point. Recently mofeiz found some cases where this is insufficient, where a closure captures a value that could change via a co-mutation, and where failure to extend the ranges in the fixpoint meant the function expression appeared independently memoizable when it wasn't.
The fix is to make InferMutableRanges update ranges to account for co-mutations. That is relatively straightforward, but not enough! The problem is that the fixpoint loop stopped once the alias sets coalesced, but co-mutations only affect ranges and not aliases. So the other part of the fix is to have the fixpoint condition use a custom canonicalization that describes each identifiers root _and_ the mutable range of that root.
[ghstack-poisoned]
We've occassionally added logic that extends mutable ranges into InferReactiveScopeVariables to handle a specific case, but inevitably discover that the logic needs to be part of the InferMutableRanges fixpoint loop. That happened in the past with extending the range of phi operands to account for subsequent mutations, which I moved to InferMutableRanges a while back. But InferReactiveScopeVariables also has logic to group co-mutations in the same scope, which also extends ranges of the co-mutating operands to have the same end point. Recently mofeiz found some cases where this is insufficient, where a closure captures a value that could change via a co-mutation, and where failure to extend the ranges in the fixpoint meant the function expression appeared independently memoizable when it wasn't.
The fix is to make InferMutableRanges update ranges to account for co-mutations. That is relatively straightforward, but not enough! The problem is that the fixpoint loop stopped once the alias sets coalesced, but co-mutations only affect ranges and not aliases. So the other part of the fix is to have the fixpoint condition use a custom canonicalization that describes each identifiers root _and_ the mutable range of that root.
[ghstack-poisoned]
We've occassionally added logic that extends mutable ranges into InferReactiveScopeVariables to handle a specific case, but inevitably discover that the logic needs to be part of the InferMutableRanges fixpoint loop. That happened in the past with extending the range of phi operands to account for subsequent mutations, which I moved to InferMutableRanges a while back. But InferReactiveScopeVariables also has logic to group co-mutations in the same scope, which also extends ranges of the co-mutating operands to have the same end point. Recently mofeiz found some cases where this is insufficient, where a closure captures a value that could change via a co-mutation, and where failure to extend the ranges in the fixpoint meant the function expression appeared independently memoizable when it wasn't.
The fix is to make InferMutableRanges update ranges to account for co-mutations. That is relatively straightforward, but not enough! The problem is that the fixpoint loop stopped once the alias sets coalesced, but co-mutations only affect ranges and not aliases. So the other part of the fix is to have the fixpoint condition use a custom canonicalization that describes each identifiers root _and_ the mutable range of that root.
[ghstack-poisoned]
We've occassionally added logic that extends mutable ranges into InferReactiveScopeVariables to handle a specific case, but inevitably discover that the logic needs to be part of the InferMutableRanges fixpoint loop. That happened in the past with extending the range of phi operands to account for subsequent mutations, which I moved to InferMutableRanges a while back. But InferReactiveScopeVariables also has logic to group co-mutations in the same scope, which also extends ranges of the co-mutating operands to have the same end point. Recently mofeiz found some cases where this is insufficient, where a closure captures a value that could change via a co-mutation, and where failure to extend the ranges in the fixpoint meant the function expression appeared independently memoizable when it wasn't.
The fix is to make InferMutableRanges update ranges to account for co-mutations. That is relatively straightforward, but not enough! The problem is that the fixpoint loop stopped once the alias sets coalesced, but co-mutations only affect ranges and not aliases. So the other part of the fix is to have the fixpoint condition use a custom canonicalization that describes each identifiers root _and_ the mutable range of that root.
[ghstack-poisoned]
We've occassionally added logic that extends mutable ranges into InferReactiveScopeVariables to handle a specific case, but inevitably discover that the logic needs to be part of the InferMutableRanges fixpoint loop. That happened in the past with extending the range of phi operands to account for subsequent mutations, which I moved to InferMutableRanges a while back. But InferReactiveScopeVariables also has logic to group co-mutations in the same scope, which also extends ranges of the co-mutating operands to have the same end point. Recently @mofeiz found some cases where this is insufficient, where a closure captures a value that could change via a co-mutation, and where failure to extend the ranges in the fixpoint meant the function expression appeared independently memoizable when it wasn't.
The fix is to make InferMutableRanges update ranges to account for co-mutations. That is relatively straightforward, but not enough! The problem is that the fixpoint loop stopped once the alias sets coalesced, but co-mutations only affect ranges and not aliases. So the other part of the fix is to have the fixpoint condition use a custom canonicalization that describes each identifiers root _and_ the mutable range of that root.
[ghstack-poisoned]
This is a stab at addressing a pattern that mofeiz and I have both stumbled across. Today, FunctionExpression's context list describes values from the outer context that are accessed in the function, and with what effect they were accessed. This allows us to describe the fact that a value from the outer context is known to be mutated inside a function expression, or is known to be captured (aliased) into some other value in the function expression. However, the basic `Effect` kind is insufficient to describe the full semantics. Notably, it doesn't let us describe more complex aliasing relationships.
From an example mofeiz added:
```js
const x = {};
const y = {};
const f = () => {
const a = [y];
const b = x;
// this sets y.x = x
a[0].x = b;
}
f();
mutate(y.x); // which means this mutates x!
```
Here, the Effect on the context operands are `[mutate y, read x]`. The `mutate y` is bc of the array push. But the `read x` is surprising — `x` is captured into `y`, but there is no subsequent mutation of y or x, so we consider this a read. But as the comments indicate, the final line mutates x! We need to reflect the fact that even though x isn't mutated inside the function, it is aliased into y, such that if y is subsequently mutated that this should count as a mutation of x too.
The idea of this PR is to extend the FunctionEffect type with a CaptureEffect variant which lists out the aliasing groups that occur inside the function expression. This allows us to bubble up the results of alias analysis from inside a function. The idea is to:
* Return the alias sets from InferMutableRanges
* Augment them with capturing of the form above, handling cases such as the `a[0].x = b`
* For each alias group, record a CaptureEffect for any group that contains 2+ context operands
* Extend the alias sets in the _outer_ function with the CaptureEffect sets from FunctionExpression/ObjectMethod instructions.
This isn't quite right yet, just sharing early hacking.
[ghstack-poisoned]
This is a stab at addressing a pattern that mofeiz and I have both stumbled across. Today, FunctionExpression's context list describes values from the outer context that are accessed in the function, and with what effect they were accessed. This allows us to describe the fact that a value from the outer context is known to be mutated inside a function expression, or is known to be captured (aliased) into some other value in the function expression. However, the basic `Effect` kind is insufficient to describe the full semantics. Notably, it doesn't let us describe more complex aliasing relationships.
From an example mofeiz added:
```js
const x = {};
const y = {};
const f = () => {
const a = [y];
const b = x;
// this sets y.x = x
a[0].x = b;
}
f();
mutate(y.x); // which means this mutates x!
```
Here, the Effect on the context operands are `[mutate y, read x]`. The `mutate y` is bc of the array push. But the `read x` is surprising — `x` is captured into `y`, but there is no subsequent mutation of y or x, so we consider this a read. But as the comments indicate, the final line mutates x! We need to reflect the fact that even though x isn't mutated inside the function, it is aliased into y, such that if y is subsequently mutated that this should count as a mutation of x too.
The idea of this PR is to extend the FunctionEffect type with a CaptureEffect variant which lists out the aliasing groups that occur inside the function expression. This allows us to bubble up the results of alias analysis from inside a function. The idea is to:
* Return the alias sets from InferMutableRanges
* Augment them with capturing of the form above, handling cases such as the `a[0].x = b`
* For each alias group, record a CaptureEffect for any group that contains 2+ context operands
* Extend the alias sets in the _outer_ function with the CaptureEffect sets from FunctionExpression/ObjectMethod instructions.
This isn't quite right yet, just sharing early hacking.
[ghstack-poisoned]
This is a stab at addressing a pattern that mofeiz and I have both stumbled across. Today, FunctionExpression's context list describes values from the outer context that are accessed in the function, and with what effect they were accessed. This allows us to describe the fact that a value from the outer context is known to be mutated inside a function expression, or is known to be captured (aliased) into some other value in the function expression. However, the basic `Effect` kind is insufficient to describe the full semantics. Notably, it doesn't let us describe more complex aliasing relationships.
From an example mofeiz added:
```js
const x = {};
const y = {};
const f = () => {
const a = [y];
const b = x;
// this sets y.x = x
a[0].x = b;
}
f();
mutate(y.x); // which means this mutates x!
```
Here, the Effect on the context operands are `[mutate y, read x]`. The `mutate y` is bc of the array push. But the `read x` is surprising — `x` is captured into `y`, but there is no subsequent mutation of y or x, so we consider this a read. But as the comments indicate, the final line mutates x! We need to reflect the fact that even though x isn't mutated inside the function, it is aliased into y, such that if y is subsequently mutated that this should count as a mutation of x too.
The idea of this PR is to extend the FunctionEffect type with a CaptureEffect variant which lists out the aliasing groups that occur inside the function expression. This allows us to bubble up the results of alias analysis from inside a function. The idea is to:
* Return the alias sets from InferMutableRanges
* Augment them with capturing of the form above, handling cases such as the `a[0].x = b`
* For each alias group, record a CaptureEffect for any group that contains 2+ context operands
* Extend the alias sets in the _outer_ function with the CaptureEffect sets from FunctionExpression/ObjectMethod instructions.
This isn't quite right yet, just sharing early hacking.
[ghstack-poisoned]
This is a stab at addressing a pattern that mofeiz and I have both stumbled across. Today, FunctionExpression's context list describes values from the outer context that are accessed in the function, and with what effect they were accessed. This allows us to describe the fact that a value from the outer context is known to be mutated inside a function expression, or is known to be captured (aliased) into some other value in the function expression. However, the basic `Effect` kind is insufficient to describe the full semantics. Notably, it doesn't let us describe more complex aliasing relationships.
From an example mofeiz added:
```js
const x = {};
const y = {};
const f = () => {
const a = [y];
const b = x;
// this sets y.x = x
a[0].x = b;
}
f();
mutate(y.x); // which means this mutates x!
```
Here, the Effect on the context operands are `[mutate y, read x]`. The `mutate y` is bc of the array push. But the `read x` is surprising — `x` is captured into `y`, but there is no subsequent mutation of y or x, so we consider this a read. But as the comments indicate, the final line mutates x! We need to reflect the fact that even though x isn't mutated inside the function, it is aliased into y, such that if y is subsequently mutated that this should count as a mutation of x too.
The idea of this PR is to extend the FunctionEffect type with a CaptureEffect variant which lists out the aliasing groups that occur inside the function expression. This allows us to bubble up the results of alias analysis from inside a function. The idea is to:
* Return the alias sets from InferMutableRanges
* Augment them with capturing of the form above, handling cases such as the `a[0].x = b`
* For each alias group, record a CaptureEffect for any group that contains 2+ context operands
* Extend the alias sets in the _outer_ function with the CaptureEffect sets from FunctionExpression/ObjectMethod instructions.
This isn't quite right yet, just sharing early hacking.
[ghstack-poisoned]
This is a stab at addressing a pattern that mofeiz and I have both stumbled across. Today, FunctionExpression's context list describes values from the outer context that are accessed in the function, and with what effect they were accessed. This allows us to describe the fact that a value from the outer context is known to be mutated inside a function expression, or is known to be captured (aliased) into some other value in the function expression. However, the basic `Effect` kind is insufficient to describe the full semantics. Notably, it doesn't let us describe more complex aliasing relationships.
From an example mofeiz added:
```js
const x = {};
const y = {};
const f = () => {
const a = [y];
const b = x;
// this sets y.x = x
a[0].x = b;
}
f();
mutate(y.x); // which means this mutates x!
```
Here, the Effect on the context operands are `[mutate y, read x]`. The `mutate y` is bc of the array push. But the `read x` is surprising — `x` is captured into `y`, but there is no subsequent mutation of y or x, so we consider this a read. But as the comments indicate, the final line mutates x! We need to reflect the fact that even though x isn't mutated inside the function, it is aliased into y, such that if y is subsequently mutated that this should count as a mutation of x too.
The idea of this PR is to extend the FunctionEffect type with a CaptureEffect variant which lists out the aliasing groups that occur inside the function expression. This allows us to bubble up the results of alias analysis from inside a function. The idea is to:
* Return the alias sets from InferMutableRanges
* Augment them with capturing of the form above, handling cases such as the `a[0].x = b`
* For each alias group, record a CaptureEffect for any group that contains 2+ context operands
* Extend the alias sets in the _outer_ function with the CaptureEffect sets from FunctionExpression/ObjectMethod instructions.
This isn't quite right yet, just sharing early hacking.
[ghstack-poisoned]
This is a stab at addressing a pattern that mofeiz and I have both stumbled across. Today, FunctionExpression's context list describes values from the outer context that are accessed in the function, and with what effect they were accessed. This allows us to describe the fact that a value from the outer context is known to be mutated inside a function expression, or is known to be captured (aliased) into some other value in the function expression. However, the basic `Effect` kind is insufficient to describe the full semantics. Notably, it doesn't let us describe more complex aliasing relationships.
From an example mofeiz added:
```js
const x = {};
const y = {};
const f = () => {
const a = [y];
const b = x;
// this sets y.x = x
a[0].x = b;
}
f();
mutate(y.x); // which means this mutates x!
```
Here, the Effect on the context operands are `[mutate y, read x]`. The `mutate y` is bc of the array push. But the `read x` is surprising — `x` is captured into `y`, but there is no subsequent mutation of y or x, so we consider this a read. But as the comments indicate, the final line mutates x! We need to reflect the fact that even though x isn't mutated inside the function, it is aliased into y, such that if y is subsequently mutated that this should count as a mutation of x too.
The idea of this PR is to extend the FunctionEffect type with a CaptureEffect variant which lists out the aliasing groups that occur inside the function expression. This allows us to bubble up the results of alias analysis from inside a function. The idea is to:
* Return the alias sets from InferMutableRanges
* Augment them with capturing of the form above, handling cases such as the `a[0].x = b`
* For each alias group, record a CaptureEffect for any group that contains 2+ context operands
* Extend the alias sets in the _outer_ function with the CaptureEffect sets from FunctionExpression/ObjectMethod instructions.
This isn't quite right yet, just sharing early hacking.
[ghstack-poisoned]
This is a stab at addressing a pattern that @mofeiz and I have both stumbled across. Today, FunctionExpression's context list describes values from the outer context that are accessed in the function, and with what effect they were accessed. This allows us to describe the fact that a value from the outer context is known to be mutated inside a function expression, or is known to be captured (aliased) into some other value in the function expression. However, the basic `Effect` kind is insufficient to describe the full semantics. Notably, it doesn't let us describe more complex aliasing relationships.
From an example @mofeiz added:
```js
const x = {};
const y = {};
const f = () => {
const a = [y];
const b = x;
// this sets y.x = x
a[0].x = b;
}
f();
mutate(y.x); // which means this mutates x!
```
Here, the Effect on the context operands are `[mutate y, read x]`. The `mutate y` is bc of the array push. But the `read x` is surprising — `x` is captured into `y`, but there is no subsequent mutation of y or x, so we consider this a read. But as the comments indicate, the final line mutates x! We need to reflect the fact that even though x isn't mutated inside the function, it is aliased into y, such that if y is subsequently mutated that this should count as a mutation of x too.
The idea of this PR is to extend the FunctionEffect type with a CaptureEffect variant which lists out the aliasing groups that occur inside the function expression. This allows us to bubble up the results of alias analysis from inside a function. The idea is to:
* Return the alias sets from InferMutableRanges
* Augment them with capturing of the form above, handling cases such as the `a[0].x = b`
* For each alias group, record a CaptureEffect for any group that contains 2+ context operands
* Extend the alias sets in the _outer_ function with the CaptureEffect sets from FunctionExpression/ObjectMethod instructions.
This isn't quite right yet, just sharing early hacking.
[ghstack-poisoned]
The issue in the previous PR was due to a ContextMutation function effect having a place that wasn't one of the functions' context variables. What was happening is that the `getContextRefOperand()` helper wasn't following aliases. If an operand had a context type, we recorded the operand as the context place — but instead we should be looking through to the context places of the abstract value.
With this change the fixture now fails for a different reason — we infer this as a mutation of `params` and reject it because `params` is frozen (hook return value). This case is clearly a false positive: the mutation is on the outer, new `nextParams` object and can't possibly mutate `params`. Need to think more about what to do here but this is clearly more precise in terms of which variable we record as the context variable.
[ghstack-poisoned]
The issue in the previous PR was due to a ContextMutation function effect having a place that wasn't one of the functions' context variables. What was happening is that the `getContextRefOperand()` helper wasn't following aliases. If an operand had a context type, we recorded the operand as the context place — but instead we should be looking through to the context places of the abstract value.
With this change the fixture now fails for a different reason — we infer this as a mutation of `params` and reject it because `params` is frozen (hook return value). This case is clearly a false positive: the mutation is on the outer, new `nextParams` object and can't possibly mutate `params`. Need to think more about what to do here but this is clearly more precise in terms of which variable we record as the context variable.
[ghstack-poisoned]
The issue in the previous PR was due to a ContextMutation function effect having a place that wasn't one of the functions' context variables. What was happening is that the `getContextRefOperand()` helper wasn't following aliases. If an operand had a context type, we recorded the operand as the context place — but instead we should be looking through to the context places of the abstract value.
With this change the fixture now fails for a different reason — we infer this as a mutation of `params` and reject it because `params` is frozen (hook return value). This case is clearly a false positive: the mutation is on the outer, new `nextParams` object and can't possibly mutate `params`. Need to think more about what to do here but this is clearly more precise in terms of which variable we record as the context variable.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Found when testing the new validation from #33079 internally. I haven't fully debugged, but somehow the combination of the effect function *accessing* a ref and also calling a second function which has a purely local mutation triggers the validation. Even though the called second function only mutates local variables. If i remove the ref access in the effect function, the error goes away.
Anyway I'll keep debugging, putting up a repro for now.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Found when testing the new validation from #33079 internally. I haven't fully debugged, but somehow the combination of the effect function *accessing* a ref and also calling a second function which has a purely local mutation triggers the validation. Even though the called second function only mutates local variables. If i remove the ref access in the effect function, the error goes away.
Anyway I'll keep debugging, putting up a repro for now.
[ghstack-poisoned]
2025-05-03 09:58:15 +09:00
21 changed files with 767 additions and 349 deletions
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
