Closed oxinabox closed 1 month ago
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (
b29b69b
) to head (d105db5
).
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Big miss on our part. I am fine shadowing it, Copier
should never export copy
et al., so I think that won't bother anyone.
@allcontributors please add @oxinabox for code, bug, idea
@abelsiqueira
I've put up a pull request to add @oxinabox! :tada:
There was type piracy of
Base.copy
, because it was overloaded without any of the types belonging to this package. This can cause spooky action at a distance -- just loading this package changes whatBase.copy
does even if you don't load the module directly. To be precise it turned what used to be a error into an unexpected behavior. This is misdemeanor type piracy. This is thus very unlikely to have actually caused anyone problems. But still it is poor code form.Fortunately the code has already been written to refer to
Copier.copy
in the place it is used. Which in this case previously resolved toBase.copy
which was imported by default (check@which Copier.copy
). And theCopier
module doesn't useBase.copy
already, so we can just rmove theBase.
and it will shadow the name. Some people find shadowing spooky. The alternative is to give it a different name. Or pass a type that you own to it.)Related issues
There is no related issue.
Checklist
[x] I am following the contributing guidelines
[ ] Tests are passing
[ ] Lint workflow is passing
[x] Docs were updated and workflow is passing
[x] CHANGELOG.md was updated
(I don't think this needs a changelog entry, since it should be invisible to errors unless they were hitting this very unlikely bug)