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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Make dim constructor explicit #1474

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 28, 2023
Merged

Make dim constructor explicit #1474

merged 3 commits into from
Nov 28, 2023

Conversation

upsj
Copy link
Member

@upsj upsj commented Nov 27, 2023

To avoid things like dim<2>{1, 2} == 3 working accidentally, we need to make the single-parameter constructor explicit.

@upsj upsj added the 1:ST:ready-for-review This PR is ready for review label Nov 27, 2023
@upsj upsj requested a review from a team November 27, 2023 13:22
@upsj upsj self-assigned this Nov 27, 2023
@ginkgo-bot ginkgo-bot added mod:core This is related to the core module. reg:benchmarking This is related to benchmarking. type:preconditioner This is related to the preconditioners type:matrix-format This is related to the Matrix formats labels Nov 27, 2023
MarcelKoch
MarcelKoch approved these changes Nov 27, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@MarcelKoch MarcelKoch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.
Might this be considered interface breaking? I wouldn't hold it up, just curious.

pratikvn
pratikvn approved these changes Nov 27, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@pratikvn pratikvn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! This is technically interface breaking, but as we have previously broken interface for wrong behaviour, it should be okay, I think.

@upsj
Copy link
Member Author

upsj commented Nov 27, 2023 •
edited
Loading

@MarcelKoch @pratikvn Yes, that was in #650

Is this interface-breaking?

@upsj upsj added 1:ST:ready-to-merge This PR is ready to merge. and removed 1:ST:ready-for-review This PR is ready for review labels Nov 27, 2023
@upsj upsj merged commit d471a5c into develop Nov 28, 2023
9 of 15 checks passed
@upsj upsj deleted the explicit_dim branch November 28, 2023 10:50
@sonarcloud SonarCloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Nov 28, 2023

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

77.8% 77.8% Coverage
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

warning The version of Java (11.0.3) you have used to run this analysis is deprecated and we will stop accepting it soon. Please update to at least Java 17.
Read more here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@pratikvn pratikvn pratikvn approved these changes

@MarcelKoch MarcelKoch MarcelKoch approved these changes

Assignees

@upsj upsj

Labels
1:ST:ready-to-merge This PR is ready to merge. mod:core This is related to the core module. reg:benchmarking This is related to benchmarking. type:matrix-format This is related to the Matrix formats type:preconditioner This is related to the preconditioners
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@upsj @pratikvn @MarcelKoch @ginkgo-bot