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

Sidestep reproducibility issue #708

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 15, 2023

Conversation

raboof
Copy link
Member

@raboof raboof commented Oct 14, 2023

@pjfanning pjfanning added this to the 1.1.0 milestone Oct 14, 2023
@pjfanning
Copy link
Contributor

Tentatively, marked as needing a 1.1.0 release. Renaming public methods is unfortunate but I think this generally ok - the change is useful.

@raboof
Copy link
Member Author

raboof commented Oct 15, 2023

Tentatively, marked as needing a 1.1.0 release. Renaming public methods is unfortunate but I think this generally ok - the change is useful.

I don't think this is a public method though: it's an inner method inside the (confusingly named the same) public method. With the change:

$ public static void loadExtensions$(org.apache.pekko.actor.typed.internal.ExtensionsImpl);
  public default void loadExtensions();
  public static java.lang.Object $anonfun$loadExtensions$1(org.apache.pekko.actor.typed.internal.ExtensionsImpl, boolean, java.lang.String);
  private void loadExtensionsFor$1(java.lang.String, boolean);
  public static org.apache.pekko.actor.typed.ExtensionId $anonfun$loadExtensions$3(java.lang.Class);
  public static scala.util.Try $anonfun$loadExtensions$2(java.lang.Class);

even from the Java perspective loadExtensionsFor is private, only loadExtensions (unchanged) is public. Mima seems fine with it as well.

Copy link
Contributor

@pjfanning pjfanning left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm - I only looked at the GitHub diff before - now that I see its an inner function, this seems fine

@pjfanning pjfanning merged commit ddb4909 into apache:main Oct 15, 2023
16 of 17 checks passed
@pjfanning
Copy link
Contributor

@raboof would you have time to create a backport PR (branch 1.0.x)?

@raboof
Copy link
Member Author

raboof commented Oct 16, 2023

👍 #739

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.

2 participants