Update Cats Version and Other Compatible Shifts by ChristopherDavenport · Pull Request #204 · typelevel/algebra

ChristopherDavenport · 2017-09-19T16:22:58Z

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.

johnynek

thanks for sending this.

johnynek · 2017-09-19T16:30:20Z

 matrix:
  include:
-  - scala: 2.12.0
+  - scala: 2.12.1


why not bump to 2.12.3?

johnynek · 2017-09-19T16:30:52Z

  organization := "org.typelevel",
  scalaVersion := "2.12.1",
-  crossScalaVersions := Seq("2.10.6", "2.11.8", "2.12.1")
+  crossScalaVersions := Seq("2.10.6", "2.11.11", "2.12.1")


can we change to 2.12.3 here?

So the dilemma is that these require scala-js changes which require changes to your build.sbt.

I didn't want to do that on the original PR in case you wanted to have a minimal dependency shift, however I can get these done.

Apparently so did, 2.11.11 so it needed to be done either way.

ChristopherDavenport · 2017-09-19T17:03:07Z

Sorry about the sloppy git.

johnynek · 2017-09-19T17:06:24Z

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

johnynek · 2017-09-19T17:07:08Z

👍

lgtm

I honestly don't know anything about scalajs so this is a bit like shooting in the dark.

ChristopherDavenport · 2017-09-19T17:46:44Z

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 · 2017-09-19T18:19:29Z

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

ChristopherDavenport · 2017-09-19T18:30:36Z

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 · 2017-09-19T18:35:33Z

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%)`	⬇️
core/src/main/scala/algebra/ring/Ring.scala	`97.29% <0%> (-2.71%)`	⬇️
core/src/main/scala/algebra/ring/Additive.scala	`42.85% <0%> (-1.59%)`	⬇️

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 · 2017-09-20T00:26:49Z

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 · 2017-10-03T16:15:39Z

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

johnynek · 2017-10-04T00:24:07Z

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

coltfred · 2017-10-05T19:43:39Z

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

johnynek · 2017-10-05T20:00:56Z

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

coltfred · 2017-10-13T19:41:20Z

@johnynek Ping!

johnynek · 2017-10-14T05:31:52Z

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 ***@***.***> wrote: @johnynek <https://github.com/johnynek> Ping! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#204 (comment)>, 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 · 2017-11-02T16:45:03Z

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

johnynek · 2017-11-02T17:25:53Z

seems like a good plan!

johnynek · 2017-11-03T00:15:22Z

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

johnynek · 2017-11-03T00:25:03Z

typelevel/cats#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 · 2017-11-03T00:33:38Z

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 · 2017-11-03T07:35:10Z

@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 · 2017-11-03T13:46:46Z

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 · 2017-11-04T15:38:26Z

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 · 2017-11-12T05:33:44Z

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 · 2017-11-12T05:41:15Z

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?

ChristopherDavenport added 2 commits September 19, 2017 16:21

Update Cats Version and Other Compatible Shifts

9aa6983

Update Travis Scala Versions

0817bdd

johnynek reviewed Sep 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

ChristopherDavenport added 2 commits September 19, 2017 17:00

Update Scala 2.12 and Scala-Js Version

b1d7d76

Fix Travis 2.12 and Gitignore Intellij

479d84e

Switch from DomNode to NodeJS jsEnv

4b3462c

I honestly don't know anything about scalajs so this is a bit like shooting in the dark.

Remove Bad Implicits from 2.12

bc9786a

johnynek merged commit a17de00 into typelevel:master Oct 4, 2017

ChristopherDavenport deleted the catsUpdate branch October 5, 2017 20:13

Uh oh!

Conversation

ChristopherDavenport commented Sep 19, 2017

Uh oh!

johnynek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

johnynek Sep 19, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

johnynek Sep 19, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ChristopherDavenport Sep 19, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ChristopherDavenport Sep 19, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ChristopherDavenport commented Sep 19, 2017

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Sep 19, 2017

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Sep 19, 2017

Uh oh!

ChristopherDavenport commented Sep 19, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Sep 19, 2017

Uh oh!

ChristopherDavenport commented Sep 19, 2017

Uh oh!

codecov-io commented Sep 19, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Sep 20, 2017

Uh oh!

coltfred commented Oct 3, 2017

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Oct 4, 2017

Uh oh!

coltfred commented Oct 5, 2017

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Oct 5, 2017

Uh oh!

coltfred commented Oct 13, 2017

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Oct 14, 2017 via email

Uh oh!

coltfred commented Nov 2, 2017

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Nov 2, 2017

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Nov 3, 2017

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Nov 3, 2017

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Nov 3, 2017

Uh oh!

denisrosset commented Nov 3, 2017

Uh oh!

LukaJCB commented Nov 3, 2017

Uh oh!

johnynek commented Nov 4, 2017

Uh oh!

MansurAshraf commented Nov 12, 2017

Uh oh!

MansurAshraf commented Nov 12, 2017

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

ChristopherDavenport commented Sep 19, 2017 •

edited

Loading

codecov-io commented Sep 19, 2017 •

edited

Loading