<< Back to previous view

[CLJ-888] defprotocol should throw error when signatures include variable number of parameters Created: 29/Nov/11  Updated: 05/Feb/14

Status: Open
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.3
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Enhancement Priority: Major
Reporter: Greg Chapman Assignee: Stuart Halloway
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 2
Labels: errormsgs, protocols

Attachments: Text File 0001-Forbid-vararg-declaration-in-defprotocol-definterfac.patch    
Patch: Code and Test
Approval: Triaged


I tried to use & in the signature for a method in defprotocol. Apparently (see below), this is compiled so that & becomes a simple parameter name, and there is no special handling for variable number of parameters. I think the use of & in a protocol signature ought to be detected and immediately cause an exception (I also think this restriction on the signatures ought to be documented; I couldn't find it specified in the current documentation, though of course it is implied (as I later realized) by the fact that defprotocol creates a Java interface).

user=> (defprotocol Applier (app [this f & args]))
user=> (deftype A [] Applier (app [_ f & args] (prn f & args) (apply f args)))
user=> (app (A.) + 1 2)
#<core$PLUS clojure.core$PLUS@5d9d0d20> 1 2
IllegalArgumentException Don't know how to create ISeq from: java.lang.Long
clojure.lang.RT.seqFrom (RT.java:487)

Comment by Alex Coventry [ 21/Oct/13 4:21 PM ]

Patch with test code attached. I have it throwing a CompilerException so that it shows source code location. Not sure whether this is kosher in clojure code, but I wish more macros provided this in their error handling.

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 22/Oct/13 6:26 AM ]

This issue has already been discussed in CLJ-1024. There I provided a patch that forbids varargs and destructuring forms at various places including defprotocol/definterface. My patch had been applied shortly before clojure 1.5 was released, but it had a bug (forbid too many uses), so it got reverted and the bug closed and declined.

I was told to bring up the issue again after 1.5 has been released.

So here is my patch again. This time it's much more relaxed and only forbids varargs in defprotocol/definterface method declarations, and in deftype/defrecord and reify method implementations.

Comment by Alex Coventry [ 22/Oct/13 7:30 AM ]

Thanks, Tassilo. If there's anywhere in the JIRA system where I could check for prior work like that for other similar issues, I'd be grateful for a pointer.

Best regards,

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 22/Oct/13 7:39 AM ]

New version of my patch.

Now I use a CompilerException with proper file/line/column information like Alex did. I also added his test case (which passes).

Concerning your question, Alex: a search for "varargs" would have listed CLJ-1024, but probably you wouldn't have looked into it anyway, because it's a closed issue...

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 22/Oct/13 7:44 AM ]

Alex, if you don't object could we remove your patch in favor of mine which covers a bit more cases?

Comment by Alex Coventry [ 22/Oct/13 10:57 AM ]

Yep. Just read through 1024 and the associated mailing list discussion. You should totally get the credit: Your patch is more comprehensive and you have been on this a long time. Thanks for folding in the good parts of my patch.

Best regards,

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 22/Oct/13 12:15 PM ]

Ok, great.

It seems I don't have the permissions to delete other peoples' attachments, so could you please delete your patch yourself?

Comment by Alex Coventry [ 23/Oct/13 2:44 PM ]

Sure, Tassilo. It's done.

I think this also needs a regression test for the case hugod originally pointed out. I initially made the same mistake as you there, but amalloy pointed it out[1] before I submitted the patch, so it is a natural mistake to make and should probably be documented in the source code.

Best regards,

[1] http://logs.lazybot.org/irc.freenode.net/%23clojure/2013-10-21.txt search for 14:48:34.

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 24/Oct/13 2:00 AM ]

Alex, I've added the regression test you suggested. Thanks for pointing that out.

Also, I added tests checking definterface method declarations, and tests checking inline method implementations made with defrecord, deftype, and reify.

However, there's a problem with the tests for deftype and reify I don't know how to fix. When I eval the macroexpand forms used in the tests in a REPL, I can see that the CompilerException is successfully thrown and printed. But it also seems to be caught somewhere in the middle, so that the macroexpand returns a form and the exception doesn't make it to the (is (thrown? ...)). Therefore, I've commented the these tests and added a big FIXME.

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 24/Oct/13 2:28 AM ]

New version of the patch with now all tests uncommented and passing. Andy Fingerhut made me aware that for the 4 deftype and reify tests, I need eval instead of just macroexpand.

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 25/Oct/13 6:25 PM ]

I have not investigated the reason yet, but patch 0001-Forbid-vararg-declaration-in-defprotocol-definterfac.patch no longer applies cleanly after the latest commits to Clojure master on Oct 25 2013.

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 28/Oct/13 2:21 AM ]

I've rebased the patch onto the current master so that it applies cleanly again.

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 28/Oct/13 2:25 AM ]

Stu, I've assigned this issue to you because you've been assigned to CLJ-1165 which I have closed as duplicate of this issue.

One minor difference between my patch to this issue and CLJ-1165 is that here I use a CompilerException with file/line/column info whereas in CLJ-1165 I've used `ex-info`. I think the CE is more appropriate/informative, as the error is already triggered during macro expansion.

[CLJ-1130] When unable to match a static method, report arity caller was looking for, avoid misleading field error Created: 17/Dec/12  Updated: 13/May/15

Status: Open
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.4
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Enhancement Priority: Major
Reporter: Howard Lewis Ship Assignee: Stuart Halloway
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1
Labels: errormsgs, ft

Attachments: Text File clj-1130-v1.txt     File clj-1130-v2.diff     File clj-1130-v2-ignore-ws.diff     Text File clj-1130-v2.txt     File clj-1130-v3.diff     File clj-1130-v4.diff     File clj-1130-v5.diff    
Patch: Code and Test
Approval: Vetted


Incorrectly invoking a static method with 0 parameters yields a NoSuchFieldException:

user=> (Long/parseLong)
CompilerException java.lang.NoSuchFieldException: parseLong, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:1:1) 
user=> (Long/parseLong "5" 10 3)
CompilerException java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No matching method: parseLong, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:2:1)

Approach: Error reporting enhanced to report desired arg count and to avoid a field exception confusion if 0 arg method.

user=> (Long/parseLong)
CompilerException java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No matching method parseLong found taking 0 args for class java.lang.Long, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:1:1)
user=> (Long/parseLong "5" 10 3)
CompilerException java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No matching method parseLong found taking 3 args for class java.lang.Long, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:2:1)

Patch: clj-1130-v5.diff

Screened by: Alex Miller

Comment by Michael Drogalis [ 06/Jan/13 6:44 PM ]

It looks like it's first trying to resolve a field by name, since field access with / is legal. For example:

user=> (Integer/parseInt)
CompilerException java.lang.NoSuchFieldException: parseInt, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:1)

user=> (Integer/MAX_VALUE)

Would trying to resolve a method before a field fix this?

Comment by Alex Miller [ 03/Sep/13 10:10 AM ]

Similarities to CLJ-1248 (there a warning, here an error).

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 09/Sep/13 12:36 AM ]

Patch clj-1130-v1.txt changes the error message in a situation when one attempts to invoke a static method with no args, and there is no such 0-arg static method. The message now says that there is no such method with that name and 0 args, rather than that there is no such static field with that name.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 04/Oct/13 3:56 PM ]

I updated the patch to simplify it a bit but more importantly to remove the check by exception and instead use the Reflector method that can answer this question.

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 12/Oct/13 3:11 PM ]

Alex, thank you for the improvements to the code. It looks better to me.

Comment by Rich Hickey [ 25/Oct/13 7:30 AM ]

due to indentation changes, this patch appears to touch much more than it probably does, making it difficult to approve.

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 25/Oct/13 10:59 AM ]

Any suggestions on what can be done to make progress here? Would it help to attach a patch made with "-w" option to ignore lines that differ only in whitespace? Provide git diff command line options that do this, after the patch is applied to your local workspace? Make a patch that leaves the indentation 'incorrect' after the change (involuntary shudder)?

Comment by Alex Miller [ 25/Oct/13 11:17 AM ]

The indentation has intentionally changed because the if/else structure has changed. I don't think making the patch incorrect to reduce changes is a good idea.

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 25/Oct/13 11:32 AM ]

Well, the 'incorrect' was in quotes because I was asking about a proposed patch that had the correct logic, but misleading indentation. Agreed it isn't a good idea, hence the shudder. I'm just brainstorming ideas to make the patch less difficult to approve.

Comment by Howard Lewis Ship [ 25/Oct/13 11:43 AM ]

At some point, you may need to bite the bullet and reformat some of the Clojure code .... Compiler.java had a crazy mix of tabs, spaces, and just completely wrong stuff.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 03/Nov/13 10:47 PM ]

Re-marking screened. Not sure what else to do.

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 04/Nov/13 8:35 AM ]

clj-1130-v2-ignore-ws.diff is identical to clj-1130-v2.diff, except it was produced with a command that ignores differences in a line due only to whitespace, i.e.: 'git format-patch master --stdout -w > clj-1130-v2-ignore-ws.diff'

It is not intended as the patch to be applied. It is only intended to make it easier to see that many of the lines in clj-1130-v2.diff are truly only differences in indentation.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 04/Nov/13 8:55 AM ]

Thanks Andy...

Comment by Rich Hickey [ 22/Nov/13 7:59 AM ]

This patch ignores the fact that method is checked for first above:

if(c != null)
  maybeField = Reflector.getMethods(c, 0, munge(sym.name), true).size() == 0;

Which is why the field code is unconditional. I'm fine with making errors better, but changing logic as well deserves more scrutiny.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 06/Dec/13 9:01 PM ]

This patch is intentionally trying to avoid calling StaticFieldExpr in the field code as that is where the (Long/parseLong) case (erroneously calling an n-arity static method with 0 args) will throw a field-oriented exception instead of a method-oriented exception. By adding the extra check here, this case falls through into the method case and throws later on calling StaticMethodExpr instead.

The early check is a check for methods of the specified arity. The later check is for the existence of a field of matching name. Combined, they lead to a better error message.

However, another alternative is to set maybeField in the first check based on field existence, not on invocation arity. That just improves the maybeField informaiton and the existing code then naturally throws the correct exception (and the patch is much simpler).

The similar case for calling n-arity instance methods with 0-arity has the same problem for the same reason:

user=> (.setTime (java.util.Date.))
IllegalArgumentException No matching field found: setTime for class java.util.Date  clojure.lang.Reflector.getInstanceField (Reflector.java:271)

Thus we can also adjust the other call that sets maybeField (which now is much less maybe).

I will attach a patch that covers these cases and update the ticket for someone to screen.

Comment by Stuart Sierra [ 08/Dec/13 12:24 PM ]

Screened. The patch clj-1130-v3.diff works as advertised.

This patch only improves error messages for cases when the type of the
target object is known to the compiler. In reflective calls, the error
messages are still the same.

Example, after this patch, given these definitions:

(def v 42)
(defn untagged-f [] 42)
(defn ^Long tagged-f [] 42)

The following expressions produce new error messages:

(.foo v 1)
;; IllegalArgumentException No matching method found: foo taking 1 args
;; for class java.lang.Long clojure.lang.Reflector.invokeMatchingMethod
;; (Reflector.java:53)

(.foo (tagged-f))
;; IllegalArgumentException No matching method found: foo taking 0 args
;; for class java.lang.Long clojure.lang.Reflector.invokeMatchingMethod
;; (Reflector.java:53)

These expressions still use the old error messages:

(.foo v)
;; IllegalArgumentException No matching field found: foo for class
;; java.lang.Long clojure.lang.Reflector.getInstanceField
;; (Reflector.java:271)

(.foo (untagged-f))
;; IllegalArgumentException No matching field found: foo for class
;; java.lang.Long clojure.lang.Reflector.getInstanceField
;; (Reflector.java:271)
Comment by Rich Hickey [ 03/Jan/14 8:41 AM ]

Changing the logic to get a different error message is something that needs to be done with great care. This now seems to prefer fields over methods, changing the semantics.

Comment by Stuart Halloway [ 31/Jan/14 3:12 PM ]

v4 patch simply enhances error messaages

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 31/Jan/14 3:18 PM ]

clj-1130-v4.diff has the same patch repeated twice in the file. clj-1130-v5.diff is identical, except deleting the redundant copy.

[CLJ-1161] sources jar has bad versions.properties resource Created: 11/Feb/13  Updated: 06/Oct/14

Status: Reopened
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.4, Release 1.5
Fix Version/s: Release 1.8

Type: Defect Priority: Minor
Reporter: Steve Miner Assignee: Stuart Halloway
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: None

Attachments: Text File 0001-CLJ-1161-Remove-version.properties-from-sources-JAR.patch    
Patch: Code
Approval: Incomplete


The "sources" jar (at least since Clojure 1.4 and including 1.5 RC) has a bad version.properties file in it. The resource clojure/version.properties is literally:


The regular Clojure jar has the correct version string in that resource.

I came across a problem when I was experimenting with the sources jar (as used by IDEs). I naively added the sources jar to my classpath, and Clojure died on start up. The bad clojure/versions.properties file was found first, which led to a parse error as the clojure version was being set.

Solution: patch leaves version.properties file out of sources JAR, where it causes problems for tools.

Comment by Steve Miner [ 11/Feb/13 10:04 AM ]

Notes from the dev mailing list:

The "sources" JAR is generated by another Maven plugin, configured here:

The simplest solution might be to just exclude the file from the sources jar. It looks like maven-source-plugin has an excludes option which would do the trick:


Comment by Jeff Valk [ 21/Apr/14 8:20 AM ]

This issue is marked closed, but I'm still seeing it: the clojure-1.6.0-sources.jar, clojure-1.5.1-sources.jar, etc on Maven Central still contain the bad version.properties files. More specifically, it looks like the fix has been applied to builds in the SNAPSHOTS repository, but not to RELEASES.

Fix applied: https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/clojure/clojure/
Not fixed: https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/releases/org/clojure/clojure/

Comment by Alex Miller [ 24/Apr/14 4:15 PM ]

Not sure what's needed here, but marking incomplete.

Comment by Jeff Valk [ 25/Apr/14 11:13 AM ]

Would a fix for this update existing sources jars (1.5.1, 1.6.0, etc) on Central? Or would any fix have to wait on the next Clojure release?

Comment by Alex Miller [ 25/Apr/14 12:37 PM ]

For all the same reasons that mutable state is undesirable, changing an existing release jar in the central Maven repository is also undesirable. While it's not technically impossible, we will not update existing releases and this will need to wait for the next. I've looked at this problem a little and I do not yet know enough to know how to fix it or why it even varies between snapshot and release. Help welcome!

In which tool do you see a resulting problem from this?

Comment by Jeff Valk [ 25/Apr/14 11:56 PM ]

Despite the way I phrased the question, I'd hoped that would be the answer. It's the right policy.

Unfortunately, this issue leaves the released sources jars essentially unusable from a tools standpoint. CIDER now has source code navigation from stacktraces – you can jump into both Clojure and Java function definitions from the error/trace. For the latter, the sources jar (for Clojure or any other Java library) needs to be on the classpath as a dev dependency. There's more host interop support in the works for CIDER too ("embrace the host platform"), but not being able to add a dependency on a stable Clojure sources jar presents a wrinkle.

Are the official Clojure releases built by Hudson? The Hudson build right before the 1.6.0 release (#532) and the one right after (#534) both show the exclusion fix, as does the git clojure-1.6.0 tag, which when I check out and build from source, is fine. The Hudson builds with release tags (e.g. 1.6 = #533, 1.6-RC1 = #512, etc), though, don't show any artifacts other than a pom.xml. This would seem to make it rather hard to audit builds...am I missing something?

Generated at Sat Jul 04 10:27:05 CDT 2015 using JIRA 4.4#649-r158309.