Update Cats Version and Other Compatible Shifts

[ChristopherDavenport]

2.12 updates requires and update to scalajs and I didn't know if you wanted to make those shifts as well, so I figured I would start off small.

[ChristopherDavenport]

Sorry about the sloppy git.

[johnynek]

no worries about the sloppy git. We squash merge anyway.

[johnynek]

👍

lgtm

[ChristopherDavenport]

Everything is fine, except for a now flagged local val in 2.12, how would you prefer I resolve?

Heck, I even just published locally and successfully tested algebird against the updated version with no other additions needed.

[johnynek]

can you remove those two local vals to get the test green?

[ChristopherDavenport]

I can, however I think it makes the tests that follow irrelevant as I believe they relied on the implicit in scope.

Will push that to you though.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #204 into master will decrease coverage by 0.38%. The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #204      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.84%   73.45%   -0.39%     
==========================================
  Files          37       37              
  Lines         776      776              
  Branches       58       58              
==========================================
- Hits          573      570       -3     
- Misses        203      206       +3

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...a/algebra/lattice/BoundedDistributiveLattice.scala	23.07% <0%> (-7.7%)	:arrow_down:
core/src/main/scala/algebra/ring/Ring.scala	97.29% <0%> (-2.71%)	:arrow_down:
core/src/main/scala/algebra/ring/Additive.scala	42.85% <0%> (-1.59%)	:arrow_down:

---

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 64eda16...bc9786a. Read the comment docs.

[johnynek]

Okay, so this lowered code coverage, but we weren't actually using the implicits...

Huh... I guess we are calling methods regardless, so I can see how that happens, but it is not 100% clear to me if we are actually not using the implicits or if this could be a bug in 2.12.3....

cc @non

[coltfred]

It'd be really nice to get this merged so there is version published for cats 1.0.0-MF.

[johnynek]

I guess we can punt on deep diving on why code coverage dropped here.

[coltfred]

@johnynek @non Could one of you publish the 0.8.0 with these changes?

[johnynek]

I’ll try to do this today. Sorry for the latency.

[coltfred]

@johnynek Ping!

[johnynek]

Sorry. I started the publish and it took a long time and I forgot and noticed it timed out on me in another window a few days later.

I’ll try again this weekend.

PS: Colt we need to get you publishing credentials for more stuff. :)

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 09:41 Colt Frederickson notifications@github.com wrote:

@johnynek https://github.com/johnynek Ping!

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/typelevel/algebra/pull/204#issuecomment-336548943, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEJdjqLRs4hw6uNRCwjbzLKW5aub8mcks5sr7zhgaJpZM4PcqfH .

-- P. Oscar Boykin, Ph.D. | http://twitter.com/posco | http://pobox.com/~boykin

[coltfred]

@johnynek Maybe you could bump to cats 1.0.0-RC1 and skip 1.0.0-MF? :rofl:

[johnynek]

seems like a good plan!

[johnynek]

so, it's pretty broken currently due to discipline upgrade. looking.

[johnynek]

https://github.com/typelevel/cats/pull/1922

this PR is what we need to accommodate.

cc @LukaJCB @denisrosset

PS: this is the pain of making cosmetic changes to fix warts.... ugh... I don't have the time to deal with this now. Is anyone interested in sending a PR to fix this?

[johnynek]

PS: now that I'm cranky about this again... another reason to live with warts is because fixing breakage costs us labor we often don't have.

[denisrosset]

@johnynek what should we do? Align algebra to the new cats-kernel style, or import from the old cats-kernel-laws the pieces in the old style, so that we don't propagate the breakage downstream?

On the Spire side, I'd like to make quite a bit of changes before we stabilize on 1.0, but how far we go will depend on other maintainers. Could be that we follow the new cats-kernel style, or that we find a third way (especially as we'd like to test primitive types such as Int and Double).

[LukaJCB]

I'm putting together a PR to update to the new law encoding. I'd appreciate if someone could answer a couple of questions on gitter :)

[johnynek]

Importing the old style may be the easiest fix. I don’t know what @LukaJCB had in mind. Honestly I was never crazy about this super inheritance driven approach but it is what we have I guess.

[MansurAshraf]

Hey guys,

Sorry to bump this thread but we have projects that are heavily using cats and Algebird which in turn depends on Algebra 0.7.0 and older version of cats. Using cats RC1 with current version of Algebra/Algebird is polluting our build with eviction notice and making some folks nervous about subtle binary compatibility issues. Do we have any timeline on when Algebra will be upgraded to cats rc1. I am hoping Algebird will upgrade to newer Algebra soon after that

[warn] Found version conflict(s) in library dependencies; some are suspected to be binary incompatible:
[warn]  * org.typelevel:cats-kernel_2.11:1.0.0-RC1 is selected over 0.9.0
[warn]      +- org.typelevel:cats-core_2.11:1.0.0-RC1 ()          (depends on 1.0.0-RC1)
[warn]      +- org.typelevel:algebra_2.11:0.7.0 ()                (depends on 0.9.0)
[warn] Run 'evicted' to see detailed eviction warnings

[MansurAshraf]

I noticed after writing the message that this PR is already merged with cats 1.0-MF. Do we know when next release will be cut?