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

Make signature problems opt-in #471

Merged

Conversation

dwijnand
Copy link
Collaborator

@dwijnand dwijnand commented Feb 10, 2020

Set ThisBuild / mimaReportSignatureProblems := true to opt-in.

TODO:

  • Add/adapt the README docs
  • Add/adapt a scripted test

@dwijnand dwijnand requested a review from raboof February 10, 2020 19:52
@dwijnand dwijnand added this to the 0.7.0 milestone Feb 10, 2020
@dwijnand
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm thinking of maybe cutting 0.6.5 sooner with the regression fix (and to test out the Maven Central switch), and make this (and perhaps some other interesting changes) the interesting part of 0.7.0.

@dwijnand dwijnand force-pushed the make-signature-problems-opt-in branch from 972e1a7 to 12d6732 Compare February 17, 2020 14:53
@dwijnand dwijnand marked this pull request as ready for review February 17, 2020 14:53
Set `ThisBuild / mimaReportSignatureProblems := true` to opt-in.
@dwijnand dwijnand force-pushed the make-signature-problems-opt-in branch from 12d6732 to 9ed6a88 Compare February 17, 2020 14:54
@dwijnand
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Happy to tweak and even revert, if you have any late concerns, @raboof! Just let me know.

@dwijnand dwijnand merged commit c07be2a into lightbend-labs:master Feb 18, 2020
@dwijnand dwijnand deleted the make-signature-problems-opt-in branch February 18, 2020 17:13
@SethTisue
Copy link
Collaborator

Curious what the reasoning was here. (I have the sinking feeling I knew once, but forgot.)

This came up over at typelevel/scalacheck#696

@dwijnand
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dwijnand commented Nov 3, 2020

Sure: the reasoning is that signature problem identification isn't perfect, so my impression of the response that it had when it was on by default is "wtf, mima you're wrong again" and more blindly excluding (building on mima's already lack of package private understanding etc). So I made it a power user's option, so you opt-in to having to think about it and managing its shortcomings.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants