Correct occurences in for comprehensions containing withFilter
#3109
Conversation
| @@ -1487,8 +1487,7 @@ com/javacp/Test#staticField. => private[javacp] static field staticField: Int | |||
| com/javacp/Test#staticMethod(). => private[javacp] static method staticMethod(): Unit | |||
| javacp => com/javacp/ | |||
| Unit => scala/Unit# | |||
| com/javacp/Test#strictfpMethod(). => @strictfp private[javacp] method strictfpMethod(): Unit | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why change this? It seems to be failing now. You can use the save-expect command to update the expected file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's the result of save-expect (even if invoked on main branch) with jvm 17+
Compilation also gives a warning:
[warn] /.../scalameta/semanticdb/integration/src/main/java/com/javacp/Test.java:69:1: [strictfp] as of release 17, all floating-point expression
s are evaluated strictly and 'strictfp' is not required
[warn] strictfp void strictfpMethod() {}
[warn] ^1 warning
I could switch to an older jvm version to leave this unchanged, should I?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe the issue is that we run the tests with 8/11 then 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep
Another option is to remove this strictfpMethod from tests 😃
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can for sure change that, I think this was added as a test for annotations if I am not mistaken
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure about annotations, it's defined here:
strictfp void strictfpMethod() {}There was a problem hiding this comment.
ach, that might be something different then, sorry I didn't look exactly. The best case here is to run sbt with JDK 11, if it's a problem for you I can do it later on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a problem at all
susliko
force-pushed
the
fix-for-comp
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b16e8b1
to
274cd32
Compare
Fixes scalameta/metals#4548