SE-0067 - Failable initializers for Numeric Types

[ultramiraculous]

What's in this pull request?

Adding failable initializers for builtin numeric types. Added init? methods to each numeric type and moved the Float->Int conversions into the FixedPoint template.

Resolved bug number: (SR-1491)

---

Before merging this pull request to apple/swift repository:

• Test pull request on Swift continuous integration.

Triggering Swift CI

The swift-ci is triggered by writing a comment on this PR addressed to the GitHub user @swift-ci. Different tests will run depending on the specific comment that you use. The currently available comments are:

Smoke Testing

Platform	Comment
All supported platforms	@swift-ci Please smoke test
All supported platforms	@swift-ci Please smoke test and merge
OS X platform	@swift-ci Please smoke test OS X platform
Linux platform	@swift-ci Please smoke test Linux platform

Validation Testing

Platform	Comment
All supported platforms	@swift-ci Please test
All supported platforms	@swift-ci Please test and merge
OS X platform	@swift-ci Please test OS X platform
OS X platform	@swift-ci Please benchmark
Linux platform	@swift-ci Please test Linux platform

Lint Testing

Language	Comment
Python	@swift-ci Please Python lint

Note: Only members of the Apple organization can trigger swift-ci.

[ultramiraculous]

Is there a test suite around this stuff that I'm missing?

[gribozavr]

Please restore this comment. The initializers should be generic.

[gribozavr]

Thank you! The tests should go into validation-test/stdlib/FixedPoint.swift.gyb, validation-test/stdlib/FixedPointArithmeticTraps.swift.gyb, test/1_stdlib/FloatingPoint.swift.gyb. Feel free to create a new file in the validation test suite for floating point if necessary.

[gribozavr]

@swift-ci Please test

[gribozavr]

@swift-ci Please test

[gribozavr]

@ultramiraculous Could you take a look at the build failures? Do you think they are related?

[ultramiraculous]

They don't appear to be related to my changes, but I've said that before and learned my lesson. It looks like there's unused results in Foundation? (Was SE-0047 completed at some point?)

[gribozavr]

Quite possibly so, but unused results should only be warnings. In this case, we're failing the swiftpm bootstrap on Linux.

SE-0047 has a complete implementation now.

[ultramiraculous]

Just got around to taking another look. It looks like the OS X test failed for a different reason than the Linux one:

/Users/buildnode/jenkins/workspace/swift-PR-osx/swift/stdlib/public/core/FloatingPointTypes.swift.gyb:740:18: error: integer literal '4503599627370495' overflows when stored into 'UInt'
    if (value) > 4503599627370495 && UInt(self) != value {

Which is clearly my fault. I'll look at a fix.

[ultramiraculous]

I switched FloatingPointTypes to use all_integer_types like FixedPoint. I didn't notice 'Int' was in FloatingPointTypes's allIntBits, and "Int" > $a_number is always true, which screwed up my logic.

I have tests mostly done, but is there a good way to build + test just the stdlib? I'm relying on hacked up build scripts to try to validate my work in a reasonable timeframe, which I imagine isn't the right way to do this?

[gribozavr]

Thank you! The usual way to test is to run build-script -RT.

[gribozavr]

We can also run the tests on CI.

@swift-ci Please test

[ultramiraculous]

Added some tests to try to hit some edge cases.

[ultramiraculous]

Still not sure what to make of the build failures, any insight @gribozavr?

[moiseev]

Since the time it was last looked at, there are some merge conflicts. @ultramiraculous could you please resolve them?

[moiseev]

@swift-ci Please test

[moiseev]

This doesn't look right.

[ultramiraculous]

@moiseev / @gribozavr Would it make sense to just break this up into 2 or 4 PRs? It got a bit larger than I'd usually prefer to have reviewed after adding the tests, and maybe we could at least get the stable parts of it merged in.

[gribozavr]

@ultramiraculous Absolutely, splitting the PR would make things easier! I just have one small request -- while splitting, could you fold the tests for each incremental step into PRs that add or change the APIs?