Changing a method of lift actor. #1940
Conversation
| @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ class LAFuture[T](val scheduler: LAScheduler = LAScheduler, context: Box[LAFutur | |||
| /** | |||
| * Has the future been aborted | |||
| */ | |||
| def aborted_? = synchronized {satisfied} | |||
| def aborted_? = synchronized {aborted} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh my. This.... is a pretty bad bug. 🤔
@lift/committers Thoughts on incorporating this fix back to 3.0 since this certainly isn't the intended behavior?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh wait, we... we never actually flip aborted to true as far as I can see, either. It looks like we should do that in abort() yeah?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We do, in the fail method, which abort also falls.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, re: backporting this, the problem is it really changes a fundamental behavior… By literally flipping the previous behavior <_<
But, the existing behavior is so wrong that it might still be worth it? This is a tough call.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I'm over here watching and eating popcorn cuz I ain't got a clue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Per our support doc, ‘API-incompatible changes will only ship as a part of a major release’… This… is pretty API-incompatible…
So perhaps the big question isn't “do we backport this to Lift 3.0” but… Do we merge it into Lift 3.3 at all?
My feeling is yes to both… But it's a pretty fuzzy feeling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm leaning toward "merging for Lift 3.3, not backporting, and including BIG BOLD TEXT in the release notes for 3.3" - mostly because this never worked as intended. I'd also love a test to make sure we don't do something foolish like this in the future. :(
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 I'm down with that.
Re: something foolish like this, thus code review :)
|
Jut realized the committers group includes a lot of folks who are inactive 🤔. Sorry folks, was in my github flow and didn't think about it. May be worth having a committers emeritus group or something for folk that are inactive. |
|
@zhongsigang Thanks for the contribution, sorry it's taken us a bit to figure out how to handle it. Would you be up for creating / updating some unit tests for LAFuture to ensure this regression doesn't accidentally reappear in the future? If not, we can handle it out of band. |
|
Unfortunately, I developed it on windows, and it's not easy to build a test
environment.
Thanks.
2018-03-04 1:21 GMT+08:00 Matt Farmer <notifications@github.com>:
… @zhongsigang <https://github.com/zhongsigang> Thanks for the
contribution, sorry it's taken us a bit to figure out how to handle it.
Would you be up for creating / updating some unit tests for LAFuture to
ensure this regression doesn't accidentally reappear in the future? If not,
we can handle it out of band.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1940 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOi_Lpu5-JJwFjFhMbHXZoD6As-GuTXDks5tatEhgaJpZM4R_bvY>
.
|
An actor method was implemented incorrectly.