Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Deprecate NO_FIELDS by NoTangent() #358

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jun 1, 2021
Merged

Deprecate NO_FIELDS by NoTangent() #358

merged 8 commits into from
Jun 1, 2021

Conversation

mzgubic
Copy link
Member

@mzgubic mzgubic commented May 27, 2021

Closes #175. Given the discussion in the issue I think we want to pretend that this is non-breaking? Zero and DoesNotExist() behave similarly enough I suppose?

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented May 27, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #358 (35e3089) into master (8c9734b) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #358   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   86.71%   86.71%           
=======================================
  Files          14       14           
  Lines         542      542           
=======================================
  Hits          470      470           
  Misses         72       72           
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/ChainRulesCore.jl 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/differentials/abstract_zero.jl 94.11% <ø> (ø)
src/differentials/composite.jl 83.05% <ø> (ø)
src/rule_definition_tools.jl 96.89% <ø> (ø)
src/rules.jl 100.00% <ø> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8c9734b...35e3089. Read the comment docs.

@oxinabox
Copy link
Member

I think it probably should be considered breaking.
(and this blocks the other PRs?)

@mzgubic
Copy link
Member Author

mzgubic commented May 27, 2021

I think it probably should be considered breaking.
(and this blocks the other PRs?)

Do we still want to deprecate if it is a breaking change? Should we simply change it instead?

@oxinabox
Copy link
Member

oxinabox commented May 27, 2021

Do we still want to deprecate if it is a breaking change? Should we simply change it instead?

I do want to deprecate it as a breaking change yes.
thought it does mean we will need a breaking change before 1.0, to remove it outright but I think that is fine

Project.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

NO_FIELDS
3 participants