Skip to content
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

ZValidation#orElse and ZValidation#orElseLog parameter must be lazy #1356

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 14, 2024

Conversation

guizmaii
Copy link
Member

@guizmaii guizmaii commented Aug 13, 2024

Do we want to implement tests for this change?

@guizmaii guizmaii requested a review from a team as a code owner August 13, 2024 04:29
Copy link
Contributor

@kyri-petrou kyri-petrou left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This change isn't binary compatible. I guess we're OK with that while we're in RC versions?

@ghostdogpr
Copy link
Member

This change isn't binary compatible. I guess we're OK with that while we're in RC versions?

What happened to making a 1.0 by the way 🤣

@guizmaii
Copy link
Member Author

guizmaii commented Aug 13, 2024

@ghostdogpr @kyri-petrou
I don't know.
Are we ok? You tell me, mates.
zio-prelude feels quite "low-level" in the sense that lots of libs use it.
Wouldn't we create a big issue by making a new non-bin-compatible version? 🤔
Or maybe the impact wouldn't be so important as it's only localized in these 2 methods?

(I really don't know much about bin-compat)

@ghostdogpr
Copy link
Member

@ghostdogpr @kyri-petrou I don't know. Are we ok? You tell me, mates. zio-prelude feels quite "low-level" in the sense that lots of libs use it. Wouldn't we create a big issue by making a new non-bin-compatible version? 🤔 Or maybe the impact wouldn't be so important as it's only localized in these 2 methods?

(I really don't know much about bin-compat)

As long as the library is in RC mode, there are no guarantees. But I think cutting a 1.0 would be nice to give those guarantees and maybe allow for a more widespread usage in libraries.

@guizmaii
Copy link
Member Author

cutting a 1.0 would be nice

Last time I talked about this with Adam, he was telling me that him and @jdegoes wanted to rework the typeclass hierarchy before to do that. John, any news about that? What was the idea/plan?

@guizmaii guizmaii merged commit ad88db1 into series/2.x Aug 14, 2024
20 of 21 checks passed
@guizmaii guizmaii deleted the validation_orElse branch August 14, 2024 01:19
@ghostdogpr
Copy link
Member

He's okay, I asked him back in April.
Screenshot 2024-08-14 at 10 29 01 AM

If there is a rework of typeclasses, it could become a 2.0 later. But with Adam gone, I don't expect it to happen anytime soon?

@guizmaii
Copy link
Member Author

@ghostdogpr

But with Adam gone, I don't expect it to happen anytime soon?

Agreed

Do we want to have a review of the code before releasing 1.0 tho?
Because we'll be stuck then.
For example, I want to change ZValidation::zipPar and all the variants because, AFAIK, they don't "par" anything.
They're just zip implementations.

@guizmaii
Copy link
Member Author

FYI, I started a ticket to list all the things we need to fix/change before v1.0.0 release: #1359

Please help me listing all these things 🙏

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants