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

Fix issue 20511: make toJSON determine safeness based on output range safeness. #7354

Merged

Conversation

FeepingCreature
Copy link
Contributor

Works around DMD being unable to infer the recursive toJson call as @safe.

@dlang-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @FeepingCreature! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

  • My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
  • My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
  • I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
  • New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.


If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Auto-close Bugzilla Severity Description
20511 regression Can't format JSONValue to OutputRange due to @safe

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub fetch digger
dub run digger -- build "stable + phobos#7354"

@FeepingCreature
Copy link
Contributor Author

Pretty sure the auto-tester failure is sporadic.

@dlang-bot dlang-bot merged commit d5e0c6b into dlang:stable Jan 17, 2020
@FeepingCreature FeepingCreature deleted the fix/issue-20511-toJson-is-unsafe branch January 17, 2020 08:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants