Digital v1 <-> v2 compatibility wrappers and shims #127
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
v1 -> v2 promotion now implicit, v2 -> v1 regression must be explicit with `.into()`
ryankurte
requested review from
ilya-epifanov,
thejpster and
a team
as code owners
|
r? @thejpster (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
eldruin
reviewed
Feb 28, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great work @ryankurte! thank you for this. I added some comments below.
Co-Authored-By: ryankurte <ryankurte@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Thanks for all the feedback! I think I've resolved everything proposed. |
eldruin
reviewed
Mar 4, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @ryankurte!
I would say the remaining items as of now are:
Debugtrait for error types- public
innermethod - maybe fewer
#[cfg(feature = "unproven")]but this is just a small detail.
|
Looks ok to me, but I'd like to hear more thoughts before merging. |
therealprof
reviewed
Mar 5, 2019
therealprof
reviewed
Mar 5, 2019
therealprof
requested changes
Mar 5, 2019
Co-Authored-By: ryankurte <ryankurte@users.noreply.github.com>
ryankurte
requested review from
therealprof,
japaric and
hannobraun
and removed request for
japaric and
hannobraun
therealprof
approved these changes
Mar 5, 2019
|
@thejpster are you happy that enough time has passed for people to raise any thoughts / issues? |
|
bors r=japaric |
bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 21, 2019
127: Digital v1 <-> v2 compatibility wrappers and shims r=japaric a=ryankurte This PR introduces implicit v1 -> v2 (forward) compatibility, and explicit wrapper types for v2 -> v1 (reverse) compatibility between digital trait versions as a final step for #95, as well as moving the deprecated v1 traits to a re-exported module for clarity. As @japaric pointed out, it is not feasible to have implicit compatibility in both directions, so it seemed reasonable to make regression explicit as it hides an `.unwrap()` on failure. @therealprof, @hannobraun, @eldruin what do you think of this approach? I think it probably needs more documentation, though I am definitely open to suggestions as to what / where. See also: #100, #92, #102. Co-authored-by: Ryan Kurte <ryankurte@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Diego Barrios Romero <eldruin@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Daniel Egger <daniel@eggers-club.de>
Build succeeded |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This PR introduces implicit v1 -> v2 (forward) compatibility, and explicit wrapper types for v2 -> v1 (reverse) compatibility between digital trait versions as a final step for #95, as well as moving the deprecated v1 traits to a re-exported module for clarity.
As @japaric pointed out, it is not feasible to have implicit compatibility in both directions, so it seemed reasonable to make regression explicit as it hides an
.unwrap()on failure.@therealprof, @hannobraun, @eldruin what do you think of this approach?
I think it probably needs more documentation, though I am definitely open to suggestions as to what / where.
See also: #100, #92, #102.