I think the following contract has valid solidity syntax:

pragma solidity ^0.4.18;

import './TestImport.sol' as Test;

contract Contract is Test.TestImport {}

But solparse fails to parse it with the following error:

Expected "(", ",", "{", comment, end of line, or whitespace but "." found

I can compile that file with solc, and remix doesn't report any errors either.

List of lurking bugs in solidity-parser

1. No 'name' field in StructDeclaration - this means we never get to know the name of the struct from the StructDeclaration Node object. (I made a PR for this but no response even after 2 weeks :()
2. IsStatement malfunctioning - When using inheritance with Contract or Library, the syntax is:

contract Car is Vehicle, Engine {
        //definition
}

Solidity parser doesn't parse the 'is' section properly. the is Array's first object is fine (vehicle), but subsequent element is just a comma, not another object for Engine.

1. Exponentiation operator (double asterisk) not being parsed by solidity parser
2. A statement like uint x = 2 days; doesn't get parsed. It gives error at start of 'days'. (though SP parses the other tokens: "2 wei / 2 szabo / 2 finny, etc.", "days" is a valid suffix too but doesn't have support.
3. Parse of var (x) = 100; failing because x is surrounded by brackets (which is legal in solidity).

This thread is for @cgewecke, will keep on making edits to this comment to add differences.

1. Parsing of Pragma statements in solparse

pragma solidity ^4.1.0 yields:

{
  "type": "PragmaStatement",
  "version": "4.1.0",
  "upward_compatible": false,
  "start": 0,
  "end": 22
}

But I find federicobond's suggestion more sensible.

2. Irrelevant Data being created by solidity-parser, fixed in solparse

refer to ConsenSysMesh/solidity-parser#56

http://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/develop/miscellaneous.html?highlight=grammar#language-grammar
http://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/develop/assembly.html#parsing-grammar

https://github.com/duaraghav8/solparse/blob/master/solidity.pegjs#L1192

shouldn't be in a start_version & end_version format

pragma solidity 0.4.0;
pragma solidity ^0.4.0;
pragma solidity >= 0.4.0;
pragma solidity <= 0.4.0;
pragma solidity < 0.4.0;
pragma solidity > 0.4.0;
pragma solidity != 0.4.0;
pragma solidity >=0.4.0 <0.4.8; // from https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/releases/tag/v0.4.0

pragma solidity 0.4;
pragma solidity ^0.4;
pragma solidity >= 0.4;
pragma solidity <= 0.4;
pragma solidity < 0.5;
pragma solidity > 0.4;
pragma solidity != 0.4;
pragma solidity >=0.4 <=0.4;

pragma solidity 0;
pragma solidity v0;
pragma solidity ^0;
pragma solidity >= 0;
pragma solidity <= 0;
pragma solidity < 1;
pragma solidity > 0;
pragma solidity != 0;
pragma solidity >=0 <=1;

All version literals must be supported

Please consider adding something like this to the grammar:

--- solidity.pegjs.old	2018-02-21 16:53:26.000000000 +0100
+++ solidity.pegjs	2018-02-21 16:53:29.000000000 +0100
@@ -1722,6 +1722,7 @@
   / InlineAssemblyBlock
   / AssemblyLocalBinding
   / AssemblyAssignment
+  / AssemblyConditional
   / AssemblyLabel
   / AssemblyFor
   / NumericLiteral
@@ -1768,6 +1769,18 @@
     }
   }
 
+AssemblyConditional
+  = 'if' __ expression:AssemblyExpression __ body:InlineAssemblyBlock {
+    return {
+      type: "AssemblyConditional",
+      name: 'if',
+      expression: expression,
+      body: body,
+      start: location().start.offset,
+      end: location().end.offset
+    }
+  }
+
 ReturnOpCode
   = 'return' {
     return {

federicobond/solidity-parser-antlr#34

Need to verify whether return(); is valid solidity syntax or not.

duaraghav8/Ethlint#10

Minimist and mem have security issues:

• https://npmjs.com/advisories/1084
• https://npmjs.com/advisories/1179

The version of mocha, yargs and mkdirp on package.json have this vulnerabilities.

To fix them just bump the versions as they have already solved it. Here is the PR with the proposed fix #37

Hi, @duaraghav8. I am having trouble deciding whether to open issues and pull requests here or in ConsenSys/solidity-parser. What are your plans for this repo?

It would be great if you are willing to merge changes from upstream solidity-parser periodically, so that implementations don't diverge too much. Otherwise, the JS ecosystem around Solidity would suffer from having two different parser implementations. Let me know how can I help.

support for calldata storage location was recently introduced for solidity 0.5.
now, because of this, the following code:

contract foo {
  function f(uint calldata) {}
}

will not be parsed correctly. Anyone not using solidity 0.5 will expect calldata in above example to be parsed as a variable name. But now, the parser always interprets it as a storage location and assigns null to variable name.

statement require(class == rrsync); is producing following error:

Expected "!", "!=", "(", ")", "+", "++", "-", "--", "0", "<", "<=", "==", ">", ">=", "[", "^", "delete", "false", "hex", "mapping", "new", "this", "true", "v", "{", "~", [1-9], comment, end of line, number, string, or whitespace but "c" found. Line: 4, Column: 10

wtf? I currently don't know the reason for this. Need to investigate.

EDIT: I know the reason. Solparse is treating class as a solidity keyword, so its not expecting the keyword to be there. fuck

code:

contract Visual {

    function foo () {


        var x = 100;

    }

}

Now, get AST using solParse.parse (code)
Notice that FunctionDeclaration Node's end: 60 and ContractStatement's end:61

FD Node inside contract is not showing the correct value for end (should be 58, the index right after '}' closing brace of function fo)

duaraghav8/Ethlint#80

Invalid, and currently parsed as correct:
enum { Test1, Test2 };

Valid:
enum { Test1, Test2 }

This can be seen by simply trying to compile a contract containing an enum with solc.

A lot of definitions in the grammar are similar to

id:Identifier __ params:("(" __ InformalParameterList? __ ")")?

Notice that the first whitespace directive __ should exist inside params rather than before it. here, it exists before it. This means in a code construct like

contract Foo is bar, baz                         {
}

the end position of the Modifier baz actually covers al the whitespace after baz instead of just covering till z. This is a problem with lot of node definitions where everything after the whitespace __ is optional.

line 851 of pegjs file. Confirm if the triple shift >>> is part of solidity or not.

Because the semicolon after pragma statement is being parsed as empty statement and not as part of PragmaStatement

(x, ...) this pattern is not recognized by solparse (reported on solium's issues)

contract ArrayTest {
    function test() {
        address[] memory addresses = new address[](2);
    }
}

Can not Parse new address[](2).

tests are currently failing because they haven't been written properly since solparse was forked from solidity-parser!!!

SourceLocation {
     start: Position { line: 1, column: 0 },
     end: { line: 1, column: 26 }
}

Very crucial to Solium error reporter column & line info

https://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/v0.5.2/assembly.html

let a, b := f(x) is valid solidity but currently cannot be parsed bc. parser expects a single var in 1 declaration.

• Parse Comments
• Provide tokens through tokenize () function

Reproduced from duaraghav8/Ethlint#73

for (var (a, b, c) = (1, 2, 3); a < 10; (a, b, c) = (2, 3, 5)) {} is accepted in solidity but solparse doesn't parse

something like var (dnstype,,) is also not parsed inside loop

and also for ModifierDeclarations

code = contract Foo {\n\tmodifier bar () returns (string) {\n\t\treturn "Hello";\n\t}\n\n\n\tfunction baz () {}\n}

a = sp.parse (code).body [0]

code.slice (0,a.body [0].end)

returns

contract Foo {\n\tmodifier bar () returns (string) {\n\t\treturn "Hello";\n\t}\n\n\n\t

should've stopped at "}" but also included the whitespace

Reproduced from duaraghav8/Ethlint#34

Running npm install on any project that includes the solium package, (and thus this package) gives the following deprecation warnings

npm WARN deprecated [email protected]: Jade has been renamed to pug, please install the latest version of pug instead of jade
npm WARN deprecated [email protected]: to-iso-string has been deprecated, use @segment/to-iso-string instead.
npm WARN deprecated [email protected]: Please update to minimatch 3.0.2 or higher to avoid a RegExp DoS issue

Upgrading mocha to the latest version will fix that.

only pragma solidity ^A.B.C patters are being parsed correctly, not when we have only A.b or A
eg -

pragma solidity 0;
pragma solidity 0.4;
pragma solidity ^0.4;

for loops are not being parsed
originally reported by jdkanani
code: https://github.com/maticnetwork/plasma/blob/38458eb08fa8c80a2fddcf986b3e21d5613d4ec3/contracts/lib/ByteUtils.sol#L28-L35

Seems that language grammar in solidity.pegjs is incomplete,, I haven't found statements for switch, case, default, break and continue.

Can not parse assembly.