Redefining a privat field in a child feature causes java.lang.Error: Value.setField in DFA

[simonvonhackewitz]

Steps to reproduce

1. checkout 99c6c7f
2. run fz tests/base32hex/base32hex_test.fz from fuzion directory

Caused by redefinition of the field alphabet in base32hex

[michaellilltokiwa]

This is not a redefinition of the field, but two separate independent fields that happen to have the same name. Of course this should not lead to such a horrible error. ;-)

[fridis]

@simonvonhackewitz, can you please extract this into a small, stand-alone example and include the complete error output in the issue, in particular, are there any previous errors reported?

[simonvonhackewitz]

Code needs to be in separate files

exception.fz

ex is
  say child.introduce

parent.fz

public parent is

  module get_name => "PARENT"

  name := get_name

  public introduce => "I'm $name"

child.fz

public child : parent is

  redef get_name => "CHILD"

  # NYI: This causes a java exception
  name := get_name

Error

fz -sourceDirs=/tmp/exception/  /tmp/exception/exception.fz                                                 ✔ 

error 1: java.lang.Error: Value.setField for 'child.name' called on class UNIT (class dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.Value$3), expected class dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.Instance
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.Value.setField(Value.java:248)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.Value$3.setField(Value.java:138)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA$Analyze.access0(DFA.java:338)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA$Analyze.lambda$access$0(DFA.java:281)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.Value.forAll(Value.java:388)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA$Analyze.access(DFA.java:273)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA$Analyze.assign(DFA.java:207)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA$Analyze.assign(DFA.java:90)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.AbstractInterpreter.process(AbstractInterpreter.java:565)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.AbstractInterpreter.processCode(AbstractInterpreter.java:503)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.AbstractInterpreter.processClazz(AbstractInterpreter.java:479)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA.analyze(DFA.java:1142)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA.analyzeNewCall(DFA.java:2139)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA.newCall(DFA.java:2101)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA$Analyze.call0(DFA.java:376)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA$Analyze.access0(DFA.java:326)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA$Analyze.lambda$access$0(DFA.java:281)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.Value.forAll(Value.java:388)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA$Analyze.access(DFA.java:273)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA$Analyze.call(DFA.java:244)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA$Analyze.call(DFA.java:90)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.AbstractInterpreter.process(AbstractInterpreter.java:596)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.AbstractInterpreter.processCode(AbstractInterpreter.java:503)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.AbstractInterpreter.processClazz(AbstractInterpreter.java:479)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA.analyze(DFA.java:1142)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA.analyzeNewCall(DFA.java:2139)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA.newCall(DFA.java:2101)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA.dfa(DFA.java:1014)
        at dev.flang.fuir.analysis.dfa.DFA.new_fuir(DFA.java:886)
        at dev.flang.be.jvm.JVM.<init>(JVM.java:794)
        at dev.flang.tools.Fuzion$Backend$3.process(Fuzion.java:191)
        at dev.flang.tools.Fuzion$Backend.processFrontEnd(Fuzion.java:507)
        at dev.flang.tools.Fuzion.lambda$parseArgsForBackend$3(Fuzion.java:1070)
        at dev.flang.tools.Tool.lambda$run$0(Tool.java:141)
        at dev.flang.util.Errors.runAndExit(Errors.java:957)
        at dev.flang.tools.Tool.run(Tool.java:141)
        at dev.flang.tools.Fuzion.main(Fuzion.java:626)


*** fatal errors encountered, stopping.
one error.

[michaellilltokiwa]

duplicate of #3108 ?

[maxteufel]

@simonvonhackewitz: does #3387 fix this?

[simonvonhackewitz]

No, with the current main branch this still happens.

[maxteufel]

so it's not a duplicate!