You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I ran into an issue where the package of the annotation type of an annotation does not get marked implicit, even though it is. It only happens when named elements are used (e.g. writing value = "unchecked" instead of just "unchecked"). It does not appear to affect Launcher.parseClass, I've only experienced the issue when building an entire model.
I've inlined a minimal test case that reproduces the issue. I had no idea of where to put it for a PR (and I don't have a fix for the problem), so inlining the test case was the best I could come up with.
Now that I think about it, I think this may not be limited to annotations as I've encountered fully qualified names pretty-printed in places that I did not expect them (using ignoreImplicit=false in the printer). I unfortunately don't have the output saved, but I will most assuredly encounter the same problems again if they actually exist as I'm operating on a fixed data set.
Hello,
I ran into an issue where the package of the annotation type of an annotation does not get marked implicit, even though it is. It only happens when named elements are used (e.g. writing
value = "unchecked"
instead of just"unchecked"
). It does not appear to affectLauncher.parseClass
, I've only experienced the issue when building an entire model.I've inlined a minimal test case that reproduces the issue. I had no idea of where to put it for a PR (and I don't have a fix for the problem), so inlining the test case was the best I could come up with.
It passes fine if you remove the
value=
from the annotation.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: