-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
Private val in value classes (Resolve TODO since 2.10 is dropped) #2692
Conversation
As a side note, I tried also working around the BC issues when doing the same in the |
@barambani thanks very much. No need to work around BC issue for this one. We decided in #2617 that we should just add mima exceptions. If you want to be really sure, you can add a special mima test like this one https://github.com/typelevel/cats/pull/2614/files#diff-978c9b9bcdbb84476d4105d6abb2c151L21 |
I will try. The issue there is that, for the generated arity syntax functions, the MiMa exceptions needed are a lot, especially in 2.11.12. I will see if that's doable in a decent way. 👍 |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2692 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95.13% 94.85% -0.28%
==========================================
Files 365 365
Lines 6758 6760 +2
Branches 289 288 -1
==========================================
- Hits 6429 6412 -17
- Misses 329 348 +19
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
I think this ready to be reviewed. Unfortunately I cannot change the generated (1.asRight[String], 2.asRight[String], 3.asRight[String]) mapN (_ + _ + _) wouldn't pass. UPDATE: changed the test to (1.validNel[String], 2.validNel[String], 3.validNel[String]) mapN (_ + _ + _) |
Could the JVM |
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.
Thanks so much!
Quick question though, how come the changed test passed the mima test? |
Sorry, lack of details from me. I changed the test just to make it more representative of the real life use cases. The change is only from |
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.
Thanks for working on this!
In relation to #2673 , this adds few more
private
s to constructor's parameters when extendingAnyVal
.In the case of
Either
'sCatchOnlyPartiallyApplied
I added an exception to MiMa as there are good chances no one is really usingdummy
.