search

tek / splain

better implicit errors for scala
MIT License
370 stars 29 forks source link

2.12.14 support #57

Closed tribbloid closed 3 years ago

tribbloid commented 3 years ago

add a new profile before/after scala 2.12.14/2.13.6

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.12.6)

  3 files  ±0    3 suites  ±0   20s :stopwatch: ±0s 23 tests ±0  23 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.12.5)

  3 files  ±0    3 suites  ±0   24s :stopwatch: ±0s 23 tests ±0  23 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.12.7)

  3 files  ±0    3 suites  ±0   24s :stopwatch: ±0s 23 tests ±0  23 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.12.8)

  3 files  ±0    3 suites  ±0   24s :stopwatch: ±0s 23 tests ±0  23 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.12.9)

  3 files  ±0    3 suites  ±0   28s :stopwatch: ±0s 23 tests ±0  23 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.12.10)

  3 files  ±0    3 suites  ±0   24s :stopwatch: ±0s 23 tests ±0  23 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.12.11)

  3 files  ±0    3 suites  ±0   24s :stopwatch: ±0s 23 tests ±0  23 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.12.12)

  3 files  ±0    3 suites  ±0   23s :stopwatch: ±0s 23 tests ±0  23 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.12.13)

  3 files  ±0    3 suites  ±0   27s :stopwatch: ±0s 23 tests ±0  23 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.12.14)

  3 files  ±0    3 suites  ±0   23s :stopwatch: ±0s 23 tests ±0  23 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.13.1)

  4 files  ±0    4 suites  ±0   21s :stopwatch: ±0s 24 tests ±0  24 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.13.2)

  4 files  ±0    4 suites  ±0   25s :stopwatch: ±0s 24 tests ±0  24 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.13.3)

  4 files  ±0    4 suites  ±0   24s :stopwatch: ±0s 24 tests ±0  24 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.13.4)

  4 files  ±0    4 suites  ±0   26s :stopwatch: ±0s 24 tests ±0  24 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

Test Report (2.13.5)

  4 files  ±0    4 suites  ±0   25s :stopwatch: ±0s 24 tests ±0  24 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  0 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 174ed639. ± Comparison against base commit 174ed639.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

tek commented 3 years ago

is it ok that those tests fail?

tribbloid commented 3 years ago

Sorry, they are NOT ok, just found that the new method still causes WrongMethodTypeException

PLEASE HOLD ON

tribbloid commented 3 years ago

Turns out that WrongMethodTypeException is a sub-optimal implementation of asInstanceOf[.] method. It is not inlined as in Java's (boolean) cast. At the moment I only saw 2 options:

  1. set areSomeColdStatsEnabled to be always true, if it doesn't impact performance a lot
  2. create a java_2.13.6+ directory
tribbloid commented 3 years ago

circumvented by using invoke instead of invokeExact, now the test should compile successfully

I have no idea man, this is supposed to be fixed by https://github.com/scala/scala/pull/4139, it should probably be reopened

anyway not of my concern

tribbloid commented 3 years ago

May I ask a question?

Is there a downside of including "scalaVersion" in the "crossScalaVersion"? E.g.:

scalaVersion := "2.13.5"
crossScalaVersions ++= List(
  "2.13.5",
  "2.13.4",
  "2.13.3",
  "2.13.2",
  "2.13.1",
  "2.12.6",
  "2.12.7",
  "2.12.8",
  "2.12.9",
  "2.12.10",
  "2.12.11",
  "2.12.12",
  "2.12.13",
  "2.12.14",
)

It is easier to debug this way

tek commented 3 years ago

not sure, does it run commands twice with +compile or something? otherwise I wouldn't see why this should be a problem

tribbloid commented 3 years ago

No it doesn't!

~/git/shapesafe/splain$ sbt +compile > log.log

~/git/shapesafe/splain$ cat log.log | grep "Forcing Scala version to"
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.12.10 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.12.11 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.12.12 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.12.13 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.12.14 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.12.6 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.12.7 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.12.8 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.12.9 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.13.1 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.13.2 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.13.3 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.13.4 on all projects.
[info] Forcing Scala version to 2.13.5 on all projects.
tribbloid commented 3 years ago

will be squeezed into the next PR, let's close it

tek commented 3 years ago

wonderful

tek commented 3 years ago

please tell me when it's ready to be pushed to Maven

tribbloid commented 3 years ago

should be ready by now, not sure if we should use a new patch version number (as we have some improvements on singleton & and ZIO types)

tek commented 3 years ago

oh, right, there are new features. definitely then. I shall make a new release now

tek commented 3 years ago

wait, we don't have a dummy plugin for 2.13.6 yet

tribbloid commented 3 years ago

... or a working plugin :) those improvements on singleton & and ZIO types are also not in the 2.13.6 compiler

tek commented 3 years ago

alright then. I've started experimenting with the analyzer plugin back in the day, I'll see if I can unearth something useful

tek commented 3 years ago

Btw, I backported the singleton and zlayer stuff to the compiler in the end. Are you referring to improvements made on those features or the features themselves?

In any case, since I didn't add a plugin hook for type mismatch, we're only called for implicit errors. I should create another PR with an additional hook, but the first one was already met with a bit of suspicion.

tribbloid commented 3 years ago

I mean the features themselves (improvement can be slow). Sounds like an alternative if the analyser plugin takes too much work

tek commented 3 years ago

well then, those are in 2.13.6. the zlayer test shows some additional line breaks, but otherwise they all pass