Skip to content

Comments

update compiler to 0.19.1#145

Merged
drathier merged 2 commits intoelm-explorations:masterfrom
harrysarson:0.19.1
Jul 22, 2020
Merged

update compiler to 0.19.1#145
drathier merged 2 commits intoelm-explorations:masterfrom
harrysarson:0.19.1

Conversation

@harrysarson
Copy link
Collaborator

@harrysarson harrysarson commented Jun 30, 2020

Upgrading requires a hack to work around compiler error when importing non-local kernel models.

I am not sure it is worth it.

Add a hack to work around compiler error when importing non-local
kernel models.
@harrysarson
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@drathier can you purge the cache please 👼

@drathier
Copy link
Collaborator

drathier commented Jul 1, 2020

Done, and restarted

@harrysarson
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Test failure is legit, some sort of sub par version of sed on mac.

@drathier
Copy link
Collaborator

drathier commented Jul 1, 2020

LMK when you want a review and/or merge

@harrysarson
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I would love a review! I think this is the best patch out there to upgrade the compiler to 0.19.1. However, tests/make.sh contains such a nasty collection of hacks that it may be better to keep using elm 0.19.0.


FILE_WITH_IMPORT=src/Test/Internal.elm

sed -i.bak 's/import Elm\.Kernel\.Debug/-- import Elm\.Kernel\.Debug/g' "$FILE_WITH_IMPORT"
Copy link
Collaborator

@drathier drathier Jul 5, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this a workaround for this bug? elm/compiler#2123

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, the other work around would be to permanently delete this import. However, I think it is better to leave the import there as it self documents the use of kernel code.

@drathier
Copy link
Collaborator

Do we expect to find/avoid any bugs/issues by moving to 0.19.1? It seems like a pretty hacky change. I haven't worked in this code base for a while, so I don't remember what we should be thinking about here.

@harrysarson
Copy link
Collaborator Author

There is not much difference between elm 0.19.0 and 0.19.1 so unlikely to make much difference. Keeping our dependencies up to date is my main motivation. It also seems like a bit of an issue if the elm test runner's test suite cannot pass with the most recent release of elm.

@drathier
Copy link
Collaborator

@rtfeldman @mgold any input?

@rtfeldman
Copy link
Collaborator

I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other...one the one hand, it's not like we're getting a big benefit, but on the other hand, it's two commits, so easy to roll back if we regret it.

I'd say feel free to merge if you like, @harrysarson!

@harrysarson
Copy link
Collaborator Author

harrysarson commented Jul 21, 2020

@drathier I can squash my commits before we merge this. (I only have commit rights on the test-runner repo not here)

@drathier
Copy link
Collaborator

Aight, imma merge this then :)

@drathier drathier merged commit b639def into elm-explorations:master Jul 22, 2020
@harrysarson
Copy link
Collaborator Author

harrysarson commented Jul 22, 2020

@drathier can you purge the cache please 👼

Thanks for merging! Please purge the cache for master! (Here is link if you would like to save some button clicking.)

@harrysarson harrysarson deleted the 0.19.1 branch July 22, 2020 16:17
@drathier
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for your help! Appreciate the link too :) Caches are nuked, builds restarted, and master is green!

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