-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 697
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
3.14 pre-flight checks: bump dependencies #10244
Merged
+10
−10
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
The API changed, according to CI. Do we want to bump and conditionalize, or leave it at the old version?
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.
True... In particular, it looks like it's only one file?
(and two more errors like that). In
tasty-quickcheck-0.11
this constructor has changed. There's another constructor that appeared in 0.11,QuickCheckReplayLegacy
that is close to the one we use (sansMaybe
).How could we conditionalize btw? Leaving <0.11 would be fine, perhaps, but then every time we do
cabal outdated
(as per the wiki) it will make some noise -- I'm not a fan of that. I'd rather we had cleancabal outdated
. In particular, if it's a matter of adding CPP in one tiny file in the test suite, I'd be fine with that.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.
Yeh, by "conditionalize" I meant CPP on
MIN_VERSION_tasty_quickcheck
or whatever it is.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.
@Kleidukos @Mikolaj opinions? Options with supporting
tasty-quickcheck
starting from 0.11 are: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.
It looks like UnkindPartition/tasty#425 may provide the same functionality as that utils file, so we may be able to upgrade
tasty
and delete the whole file eventually.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.
Yes obviously my pick is conditioned by "Does the CI pass" ;-)
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.
Yes, I think that we should start with (1) or (3), depending on what is required to satisfy the build, and then move towards (3), since
tasty-quickcheck
is only a test dependency.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.
Hey all. I put ^>=0.11 for
tasty-quickcheck
, and CI seems to be fine with it. Check it out.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.
Great! I verified that the QuickCheck seeds are being displayed correctly with the new API: https://github.com/haskell/cabal/actions/runs/10241795977/job/28330597202#step:19:17
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.
Oh, that's great, because I wasn't sure.