Skip to content

Fix scalacOptions #818

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 7, 2020
Merged

Conversation

regadas
Copy link
Collaborator

@regadas regadas commented May 7, 2020

-optimize behaves differently (more agressive) for scala >=2.12 and we were applying it for 2.13 builds.

inline optimization is still kept for >=2.12 but it's only from algebird packages.

@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #818 into develop will increase coverage by 0.15%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #818      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    89.33%   89.49%   +0.15%     
===========================================
  Files          116      116              
  Lines         9164     9164              
  Branches       383      383              
===========================================
+ Hits          8187     8201      +14     
+ Misses         977      963      -14     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...scala/com/twitter/algebird/HyperLogLogSeries.scala 95.16% <0.00%> (-4.84%) ⬇️
.../main/scala/com/twitter/algebird/Successible.scala 87.50% <0.00%> (-4.17%) ⬇️
.../main/scala/com/twitter/algebird/BloomFilter.scala 95.57% <0.00%> (+1.76%) ⬆️
...src/main/scala/com/twitter/algebird/Interval.scala 83.47% <0.00%> (+6.08%) ⬆️
...ala/com/twitter/algebird/ApproximateProperty.scala 82.00% <0.00%> (+10.00%) ⬆️
...n/scala/com/twitter/algebird/SuccessibleLaws.scala 92.30% <0.00%> (+15.38%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 515fa2b...bf19666. Read the comment docs.

@regadas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

regadas commented May 7, 2020

Hi @johnynek, would you have time to make a release and also include #818? Thanks!

@johnynek
Copy link
Collaborator

johnynek commented May 7, 2020

oh man... good catch... yeah, I will do a release tomorrow.

@johnynek johnynek merged commit 9799114 into twitter:develop May 7, 2020
@regadas regadas deleted the 817_fix_compile_inline branch May 7, 2020 11:25
@regadas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

regadas commented May 7, 2020

Thanks @johnynek 🙏

@johnynek
Copy link
Collaborator

johnynek commented May 7, 2020

I just spent some time on trying to publish.... after churning for quite a while it failed saying this machine has no GPG key. I thought I had published from this machine before.... now I'll go back into debug mode... I hope to have it solved today.

@johnynek
Copy link
Collaborator

johnynek commented May 7, 2020

https://github.com/twitter/algebird/releases/tag/v0.13.7

seems to have worked with a machine that had an existing gpg key (I wish the plugin could test that before doing a ton of work). Just did sbt release and everything seemed to work.

Thanks to you and @nevillelyh fixing up the sbt release script.

@regadas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

regadas commented May 7, 2020

Ahah that's good news! 👍 glad you got it working. Don't know if it's of interest but i have a simple Github Actions workflow that allow to publish a release on tag vX.X.X. It only requires adding a few secrets in the repo settings. If this is something you would want to explore let me know 👍

We can have it publish signed snapshots on merge to master as well ... that way we also now that signing always works.

@johnynek
Copy link
Collaborator

johnynek commented May 7, 2020

yeah, that sounds interesting for sure, then anyone who can push to master/merge can effectively publish (so, that would include you guys right?)

It would also be probably worth it to migrate CI wholesale to github actions...

@regadas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

regadas commented May 7, 2020

yeah, that sounds interesting for sure, then anyone who can push to master/merge can effectively publish (so, that would include you guys right?)

correct. Ok I'll propose something soon.

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