-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 66
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
Patch cljs tests #159
Patch cljs tests #159
Conversation
The function in question is marked internal, so this should not be a breaking API change.
try-either was previously not implemented for clojurescript, causing try-success-test and try-exception-test to fail. This requires the try-either macro to detect when it is being expanded in a cljs namespace, as reader conditionals have already been expanded by the time macros are evaluated. See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clojurescript/iBY5HaQda4A for a discussion of the approach used.
Added type hints to avoid reflecting on fields at runtime. This should provide a significant performance improvement for hot code. Note, there is a trade-off with this approach: third party types will no longer be useable in place of cats types because the field references are no longer reflectively looked up by name but statically determined. If this becomes a problem a better approach would be to add protocols for retrieving shared values instead of direct field access.
The cljs tests should fail for this commit. - Cosmetic tweaks - Rename main to -main - Use when-not and (aget js/process "exit") instead of (set! (.-exitCode js/process) n) See #158
@sfnelson et al., feel free to make a PR against |
I think the call stack size error is unrelated to the other changes. It occurred in a different function for me while I was running tests earlier today. |
The failure seems rather arbitrary and, as you say, unrelated to these changes. I was able to restart the build and turn everything green. |
I had to leave the tests running for 10 minutes before it occurred for me locally. I think it depends on the seed given to quick-check, which unfortunately isn't printed when tests fail. |
Subsumes #157.
See failing test output.