search

clj-kondo / clj-kondo

Static analyzer and linter for Clojure code that sparks joy
Eclipse Public License 1.0
1.71k stars 293 forks source link

Unresolved symbols in CLJC files: report if symbol exists only in one dialect #1873

Closed danskarda closed 1 year ago

danskarda commented 1 year ago

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Some functions are defined only in clojure.core or cljs.core. For example clojure.core/requiring-resolve or cljs.core/clj->js.

clj-kondo correctly reports unresolved symbol: requiring-resolve in CLJC file because it is undefined for ClojurScript.

However this warning was very puzzling to me, because I forgot I am in CLJC file. CIDER was able to auto-complete the symbol, showed me its definition and arity in status line and I was able to jump to its definition. So was it defined or not? One tool says yes, another tool says no. Is it bug in clj-kondo? :thinking:

I tried to find the root-cause and searched clj-kondo source files. Then I tried to replicate the issue with minimal source file. Suddenly requiring-resolve was defined. Huh? Only then I realized my file was .cljC so even though NOW I use Clojure REPL and symbol IS defined, it is really NOT defined in ClojureScript context.

Describe the solution you'd like When resolving symbols in CLJC files, check if they are defined at least for one dialect in its core library. For example if you use cljs.core/clj->js warn:

unresolved symbol: clj->js is defined in cljs.core, not in clojure.core

This can safe some confusion and head-scratching :)

Describe alternatives you've considered Solution might get tricky as .CLJC files could be used for other Clojure dialects like ClojureDart, babashka or ClojErl with different set of build-in functions and macros in clojure.core.

borkdude commented 1 year ago

Is it bug in clj-kondo?

No, this is intentional.

Thanks for the report. I consider this a duplicate of https://github.com/clj-kondo/clj-kondo/issues/1196 Please upvote the issue there.

danskarda commented 1 year ago

Thank you for fast response.

I have not seen #1196. To include source platform(s) in (any) reported cljc issue is better and covers more scenarios. I should have think about that :)