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
v2.0.2: Possible issue with Clojure 1.9+? #135
Comments
ptaoussanis
pushed a commit
to ptaoussanis/cassaforte
that referenced
this issue
May 22, 2017
Just guessing at the original intention here.
@ptaoussanis a PR would definitely be welcome :) |
ptaoussanis
pushed a commit
to ptaoussanis/cassaforte
that referenced
this issue
May 22, 2017
ptaoussanis
pushed a commit
to ptaoussanis/cassaforte
that referenced
this issue
May 22, 2017
- Just guessing at the original intention here. - Have yet to confirm that this is the *only* change necessary for 1.9+ support.
ptaoussanis
pushed a commit
to ptaoussanis/cassaforte
that referenced
this issue
May 22, 2017
- Just guessing at the original intention here. - Confirmed that this seems to be the only change necessary for 1.9+ support.
PR at #136 |
michaelklishin
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 22, 2017
[#135] Typo preventing use with Clojure 1.9+
@ptaoussanis done. |
Awesome, thanks Michael! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hi there,
Have a project that's using
[clojurewerkz/cassaforte "2.0.2"]
against[org.clojure/clojure "1.8.0"]
.Would like to update to
[org.clojure/clojure "1.9.0-alpha16"]
but this appears to be generating a spec violation against Cassaforte (clojurewerkz/cassaforte/query.clj:85)?Actually, I think it might be referring to line 97:
cassaforte/src/clojure/clojurewerkz/cassaforte/query.clj
Line 97 in 6049a4c
Clojure 1.9 is using Spec against compiled code, so I think the
defn
here is tripping.Is this a known problem? Am surprised Cassaforte isn't listed at: https://dev.clojure.org/display/design/Errors+found+with+core+specs
Would a PR be welcome for this against 2.0.2? Was the intention for
{:page 0}
to read{per-page 0}
?Thanks!
Stacktrace follows:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: