1 files changed, 39 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/lib/dialyzer/test/indent_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl b/lib/dialyzer/test/indent_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..516358f7c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/dialyzer/test/indent_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+%%
+%% The current treatment of typed records leaves much to be desired.
+%% These are not made up examples; I have cases like that the branch
+%% of the HiPE compiler with types in records. I get very confusing
+%% warnings which require a lot of effort to find their cause and why
+%% a function has no local return.
+%%
+-module(trec).
+-export([test/0, mk_foo_exp/2]).
+
+-record(foo, {a :: integer() | 'undefined', b :: [atom()]}).
+
+%%
+%% For these functions we currently get the following warnings:
+%%   1. Function test/0 has no local return
+%%   2. The call trec:mk_foo_loc(42,any()) will fail since it differs
+%%      in argument position 1 from the success typing arguments:
+%%      ('undefined',atom())
+%%   3. Function mk_foo_loc/2 has no local return
+%%
+%% Arguably, the second warning is not what most users have in mind when
+%% they wrote the type declarations in the 'foo' record, so no doubt
+%% they'll find it confusing. But note that it is also quite confusing!
+%% Many users may be wondering: How come there is a success typing for a
+%% function that has no local return? Running typer on this module
+%% reveals a success typing for this function that is interesting indeed.
+%%
+test() ->
+   mk_foo_loc(42, some_mod:some_function()).
+
+mk_foo_loc(A, B) ->
+    #foo{a = A, b = [A,B]}.
+
+%%
+%% For this function we used to get a "has no local return" warning
+%% but we got no reason. This has now been fixed.
+%%
+mk_foo_exp(A, B) when is_integer(A) ->
+    #foo{a = A, b = [A,B]}.