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

Added collect signature for Consumer companion object (#1151) #1152

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Apr 3, 2020

Conversation

paualarco
Copy link
Member

@paualarco paualarco commented Mar 30, 2020

No description provided.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Avasil Avasil left a comment

Thanks, I've left some comments but it looks great!

@paualarco paualarco requested a review from Avasil Apr 1, 2020
* WARNING: For infinite streams the process will eventually
* blow up with an out of memory error.
*/
def toListL[A]: Consumer[A, List[A]] =
Copy link
Collaborator

@Avasil Avasil Apr 2, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

L is only used in Observable to differentiate between methods returning Task and Observable, I would leave just toList in Consumer. Sorry for nitpick :D

Copy link
Member Author

@paualarco paualarco Apr 2, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No worries, I have changed that already :)

assert(s.state.tasks.isEmpty, "TestScheduler should have no pending tasks")
}

test("should return the same all consumed elements as a sequence") { implicit s =>
Copy link
Collaborator

@Avasil Avasil Apr 2, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it needs s.tick() for tests to pass and it's good to merge :)

Copy link
Member Author

@paualarco paualarco Apr 2, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thought it was passing already...
is there a better way of running minitests than "sbt project reactiveTests" andThen "sbt test"?

Copy link
Collaborator

@Avasil Avasil Apr 3, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ReactiveTests is something else but I can see how it is confusing :D

reactiveJVM/test

or

reactiveJVM/testOnly *NameOfTheTestClass

Avasil
Avasil approved these changes Apr 3, 2020
Copy link
Collaborator

@Avasil Avasil left a comment

Thank you :)

@Avasil Avasil merged commit e5d4a04 into monix:master Apr 3, 2020
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants