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

improved support for subtyping in applicativeError syntax #2518

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

improved support for subtyping in applicativeError syntax #2518

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mberndt123
Copy link
Contributor

This is a case that I missed in my last pull request.
new Exception("foo").raiseError[Either[Throwable, ?], Nothing] now compiles; without this patch, you need to write (new Exception("foo"): Throwable).raiseError[Either[Throwable, ?], Nothing]

@LukaJCB , @kailuowang since you merged my last PR, you might want to take a look at this too.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Sep 19, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #2518 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2518   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.35%   95.35%           
=======================================
  Files         358      358           
  Lines        6530     6530           
  Branches      282      282           
=======================================
  Hits         6227     6227           
  Misses        303      303
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
.../src/main/scala/cats/syntax/applicativeError.scala 100% <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 1d5a51a...57d30e7. Read the comment docs.

@kailuowang
Copy link
Contributor

kailuowang commented Sep 19, 2018

This change was already introduced by #2511 which is merged 9 hours ago. It's already in master.

So I am totally confused why I am seeing this diff (meaning the change is not on master) in this PR.
WTH?

@mberndt123
Copy link
Contributor Author

I based my PR on an older master, I guess that must be why.

@mberndt123 mberndt123 closed this Sep 20, 2018
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.

3 participants