-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 577
Comments
Conversation
CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.
Codecov Report
✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 49.31%. Comparing base (9f15cce) to head (afcbd9a).
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@ ## develop #304 +/- ## =========================================== + Coverage 49.29% 49.31% +0.02% =========================================== Files 322 322 Lines 18523 18523 Branches 1055 1108 +53 =========================================== + Hits 9131 9135 +4 + Misses 9392 9388 -4
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
- ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
9cb6e48 to
93acfed
Compare
7df8658 to
35daad3
Compare
35daad3 to
2e558ef
Compare
felixbr
commented
Jun 30, 2022
The failing test seems to be the same flaky one as in the past
felixbr
commented
Jun 30, 2022
The last commit is a bit off-topic but hopefully it fixes the flaky test which has been bugging me for a while now.
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.
There is a merge conflict because a PR was merged that changed this to 3.0.2 - building with 3.0.2 is better imho because classes will work with Scala 3.0.x and 3.1.x. If you compile with 3.1.3, then the classes will not work with Scala 3.0.x runtime.
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.
Are you sure about that? I thought binary compatibility was finally solved by the Tasty mechanism.
The libraries published to Maven also don't specify anything beyond "_3" as the version suffix.
If there is really still a problem I don't mind building with 3.0.x for the moment, though.
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.
Have a read of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-3524 and its link
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.
Ok, I see. That's unfortunate.
I will rework/close my PRs as soon as I find the time.
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.
sbt-scoverage 2.0.0 is now out and upgrade seems to be smooth (from my experience with other projects)
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.
I tried that first but ran into all sorts of problems, so I changed the PR to be more conservative. My main goal here is using a recent Scala 3 version.
I only update Scala 2.x versions until it became painful to go further (e.g. 2.12.16 and 2.13.8 both caused issues).
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This is primarily to get away from the release candidate version of Scala 3. I also updated the other Scala versions for general maintenance.
edit: I missed PR #300 which already updates Scala 3 to a non-RC version, my apologies. I'll let you be the judge which PR to accept and will modify/rebase/close mine accordingly.
edit2: I wanted to add CI for Scala 3 as well but scoverage isn't quite there yet and some build adjustments are needed, so this will require a separate PR.
Cheers
~ Felix