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

Migrates to Scala 3 #207

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

CJSmith-0141
Copy link
Contributor

  • Remove shapeless
  • Remove refined
  • Add -Xsource:3 to scala 2.13 compiler flags
  • Remove some arbitraries from the test suite

The idea behind this change is to get to scala 3. This unfortunately needed some removal of very nice compilation time checks, but gains scala 3.

- Remove shapeless
- Remove refined
- Add `-Xsource:3` to scala 2.13 compiler flags
- Remove some arbitraries from the test suite
- re generates the CI files

The idea behind this change is to get to scala 3. This unfortunately
needed some removal of very nice compilation time checks, but gains
scala 3.
@bpholt
Copy link
Member

bpholt commented Aug 23, 2023

Thanks for this! We don't use Scala 3 much yet at Dwolla, but it's always nice to add support for it to our OSS libraries.

I think we can keep refined if we merge #190 (or something including it), because refined 0.11 has Scala 3 support (excluding the macros). It means we'd lose the compile-time refinements (unless we split them into Scala 2 and Scala 3 sources), but I'd rather just lose those than lose the refinement types altogether.

I have a branch locally where I've been playing with this (just to make sure it wasn't nonsense), so I'll push that up so you can take a look.

@CJSmith-0141
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah I'll take a look at doing a PR that updates to refined 0.11, then rebase this PR after that one is merged.

@bpholt
Copy link
Member

bpholt commented Aug 24, 2023

Sounds good, but FYI I have a couple other things staged locally that will cause merge issues; you may want to hold off for a bit to avoid rework (as much as possible)

@CJSmith-0141
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll hold off then. Thank you for taking a look at it 😄

@bpholt
Copy link
Member

bpholt commented Aug 24, 2023

I proposed an alternative approach in #211.

@CJSmith-0141
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing in favor of #211 @bpholt

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants