-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 698
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
3.14 pre-flight checks: bump dependencies #10244
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't recall why I closed the original PR to bump hashable
, aside from concentrating on why I couldn't do local validates which led to #10205.
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ library | |||
, QuickCheck | |||
, rere >=0.1 && <0.3 | |||
, tasty <1.6 | |||
, tasty-quickcheck <0.11 | |||
, tasty-quickcheck <0.12 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The API changed, according to CI. Do we want to bump and conditionalize, or leave it at the old version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
True... In particular, it looks like it's only one file?
tests/UnitTests/Distribution/Solver/Modular/QuickCheck/Utils.hs:35:24: error: [GHC-83865]
Error: • Couldn't match expected type: (Test.QuickCheck.Random.QCGen, Int)
with actual type: Maybe a0
• In the pattern: Nothing
In the pattern: QuickCheckReplay Nothing
In a case alternative:
QuickCheckReplay Nothing -> getStdRandom random
|
35 | QuickCheckReplay Nothing -> getStdRandom random
| ^^^^^^^
(and two more errors like that). In tasty-quickcheck-0.11
this constructor has changed. There's another constructor that appeared in 0.11, QuickCheckReplayLegacy
that is close to the one we use (sans Maybe
).
How could we conditionalize btw? Leaving <0.11 would be fine, perhaps, but then every time we do cabal outdated
(as per the wiki) it will make some noise -- I'm not a fan of that. I'd rather we had clean cabal outdated
. In particular, if it's a matter of adding CPP in one tiny file in the test suite, I'd be fine with that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeh, by "conditionalize" I meant CPP on MIN_VERSION_tasty_quickcheck
or whatever it is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Kleidukos @Mikolaj opinions? Options with supporting tasty-quickcheck
starting from 0.11 are:
- add CPP
- don't support it, stick to <0.11
- support versions starting from 0.11. It looks like it's only a test dependency (but in the cabal-install package), so it's probably not too bad regarding the support window.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks like UnkindPartition/tasty#425 may provide the same functionality as that utils file, so we may be able to upgrade tasty
and delete the whole file eventually.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes obviously my pick is conditioned by "Does the CI pass" ;-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I think that we should start with (1) or (3), depending on what is required to satisfy the build, and then move towards (3), since tasty-quickcheck
is only a test dependency.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey all. I put ^>=0.11 for tasty-quickcheck
, and CI seems to be fine with it. Check it out.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great! I verified that the QuickCheck seeds are being displayed correctly with the new API: https://github.com/haskell/cabal/actions/runs/10241795977/job/28330597202#step:19:17
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, that's great, because I wasn't sure.
385f573
to
5c1f374
Compare
5c1f374
to
7788026
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great!
* allow hashable-1.5 * allow tasty-quickcheck 0.11, and in case of cabal-install:test move to ^>=0.11 --------- Co-authored-by: mergify[bot] <37929162+mergify[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Template B: This PR does not modify behaviour or interface
E.g. the PR only touches documentation or tests, does refactorings, etc.
Include the following checklist in your PR:
Is this a PR that fixes CI? If so, it will need to be backported to older cabal release branches (ask maintainers for directions).