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

Update scala-library to 2.13.15 #562

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 18, 2024

Conversation

scala-steward
Copy link
Contributor

About this PR

πŸ“¦ Updates org.scala-lang:scala-library from 2.13.14 to 2.13.15

πŸ“œ GitHub Release Notes - Version Diff

Usage

βœ… Please merge!

I'll automatically update this PR to resolve conflicts as long as you don't change it yourself.

If you'd like to skip this version, you can just close this PR. If you have any feedback, just mention me in the comments below.

Configure Scala Steward for your repository with a .scala-steward.conf file.

Have a fantastic day writing Scala!

βš™ Adjust future updates

Add this to your .scala-steward.conf file to ignore future updates of this dependency:

updates.ignore = [ { groupId = "org.scala-lang", artifactId = "scala-library" } ]

Or, add this to slow down future updates of this dependency:

dependencyOverrides = [{
  pullRequests = { frequency = "30 days" },
  dependency = { groupId = "org.scala-lang", artifactId = "scala-library" }
}]
labels: library-update, early-semver-patch, semver-spec-patch, commit-count:1

@Philippus
Copy link
Member

Looks like scala/scala#9452 is doing it's thing?

@Philippus
Copy link
Member

Philippus commented Sep 30, 2024

@som-snytt @SethTisue any thoughts? I can silence the warning, but I think this might be a (new) false positive.

@SethTisue SethTisue self-assigned this Oct 10, 2024
@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

@som-snytt wdyt? seems likely that scala/scala#9452 is the relevant PR

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

SethTisue commented Oct 18, 2024

hmm, so, it's seems odd or even gross to me that whitespace and comment are defined as Parser[Any]. it's not clear to me if someone was being lazy there, or if there was some trouble getting the ancient version of Scala this stuff was originally written in to use a better type, or what.

Whether it could be improved, and what the compatibility implications of fixing it would be, is something a volunteer could look at.

Assuming Any stays, I think it's plausible this isn't a false positive, given that def | [U >: T](q: => Parser[U]): Parser[U] is in play.

I haven't necessarily thought my way to the bottom of this, but I don't want to spend more time on trying to be certain, since my hunch is that the warning is correct.

@SethTisue SethTisue removed their assignment Oct 18, 2024
@Philippus Philippus merged commit 6bbf7a8 into scala:main Oct 18, 2024
12 checks passed
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.

3 participants