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

Initial attempt to upgrade to scala3 rc1 #64

Merged

Conversation

yurique
Copy link
Contributor

@yurique yurique commented Jan 16, 2021

@yurique yurique changed the title Initial attempt to upgrade to scala3 m3 Initial attempt to upgrade to scala3 rc1 Jan 18, 2021
@yurique yurique force-pushed the initial-attempt-to-upgrade-to-scala3-M3 branch from 7ef6a4d to f44bc13 Compare January 18, 2021 01:17
@yurique yurique changed the base branch from master to next-0.12 January 18, 2021 01:18
@yurique yurique marked this pull request as ready for review January 18, 2021 01:21
@yurique yurique requested a review from raquo as a code owner January 18, 2021 01:21
lazy val root =
project.in(file("."))
.aggregate(domtypes.js, domtypes.jvm)
.settings(noPublish)
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess it's not possible to configure noPublish from release.sbt? Not sure which way is better, it just seems everything else release-related is there now.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yeah, can't refer a lazy val defined in a different sbt file

"-Ywarn-unused:params",
"-Wunused:explicits"
))),
scalacOptions in (Compile, doc) ~= (_.filter(_.startsWith("-Xplugin"))),
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What / why are you filtering for here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it's because of this: typelevel/sbt-tpolecat#36

I later changed this to explicitly filtering out the offensive scalac options, but forgot to change here: https://github.com/raquo/Airstream/pull/68/files#diff-5634c415cd8c8504fdb973a3ed092300b43c4b8fc1e184f7249eb29a55511f91R24-R39


inThisBuild(Seq(
name := "Scala DOM Types",
normalizedName := "domtypes",
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Where does the new config take normalizedName from? I'd prefer for it to be explicit.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sbt says it's "not used by any other settings/tasks", so it doesn't affect anything

.aggregate(domtypes.js, domtypes.jvm)
.settings(noPublish)
.settings(
name := "Scala DOM Types"
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This used to be in ThisBuild / name, right? I'm sbt-challenged, is this the same, or if not, what's the difference?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

With a single module (root) the result is the same (if there were modules, ThisBuils / name would set the same name for all of them). In this case, I don't really have a strong opinion (just did it as it is in Airstream/Laminar).

@raquo raquo changed the base branch from next-0.12 to next-0.12-scala3 January 22, 2021 03:51
@raquo raquo merged commit 65ad441 into raquo:next-0.12-scala3 Jan 22, 2021
raquo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2021
Co-authored-by: Scalavision <scalavision@gmail.com>
raquo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2021
Co-authored-by: Scalavision <scalavision@gmail.com>
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