This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 11, 2021. It is now read-only.
Support 0.6 #8
Merged
Support 0.6 #8
Conversation
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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8 +/- ##
=========================================
+ Coverage 75.07% 78.4% +3.32%
=========================================
Files 6 6
Lines 333 338 +5
=========================================
+ Hits 250 265 +15
+ Misses 83 73 -10
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
rofinn
reviewed
Apr 18, 2017
src/executors.jl
Outdated
| ), | ||
| on_error_inner! | ||
| ) | ||
| @static if VERSION < v"0.6.0-dev.2042" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be cleaner to do something like
retry_args = @static if VERSION < v"0.6.0-dev.2042"
(retries(exec), Base.DEFAULT_RETRY_MAX_DELAY)
else
ExponentialBackoff(; n=retries(exec))
end
f = wrap_on_error(wrap_retry(run_inner!, allow_retry(retry_on(exec)), retry_args...))There was a problem hiding this comment.
retry_args = @static if VERSION < v"0.6.0-dev.2042"
(allow_retry(retry_on(exec)), retries(exec), Base.DEFAULT_RETRY_MAX_DELAY)
else
(ExponentialBackOff(; n=retries(exec)), allow_retry(retry_on(exec)))
end
f = wrap_on_error(
wrap_retry(
run_inner!,
retry_args...,
),
on_error_inner!
)How's this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, that seems fine. It's annoying that the ordering of the arguments changed as well, but I think this clearly identifies what's actually different.
| @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ function process_nodes!(ex::Expr, ctx_sym::Symbol) | |||
| elseif ex.head === :dispatchinclude | |||
| process_include!(ex, ctx_sym) | |||
| else | |||
| map!(x->process_nodes!(x, ctx_sym), ex.args) | |||
| map!(x->process_nodes!(x, ctx_sym), ex.args, ex.args) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These maps are kinda ugly. Do you know why map!(f, collection) was removed?
tkelman
referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2017
In 0.5 asyncmap throws a CompositeException of the errors collected, while in 0.6 it will simply throws the first error it finds. I've made note of this difference in the `dispatch!` docstrings and updated the tests to handle each julia version explicitly.
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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.
Adds some very specific version checks and fixes some (not all) deprecations.