0.7.0

[BenFradet]

• hammock -> scalaj
• new readme examples
• final scala-lru-map version
• changelog release date
• publish doc
• cla-bot

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #155 into develop will decrease coverage by 0.58%.
The diff coverage is 87.5%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #155      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    91.36%   90.78%   -0.59%     
===========================================
  Files            3        6       +3     
  Lines          139      141       +2     
  Branches        10       10              
===========================================
+ Hits           127      128       +1     
- Misses          12       13       +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ain/scala/com.snowplowanalytics/forex/errors.scala	100% <100%> (ø)
.../scala/com.snowplowanalytics/forex/responses.scala	100% <100%> (ø)
...scala/com.snowplowanalytics/forex/ZonedClock.scala	66.66% <66.66%> (ø)
.../scala/com.snowplowanalytics/forex/Transport.scala	73.33% <73.33%> (ø)
...main/scala/com.snowplowanalytics/forex/Forex.scala	90.19% <89.47%> (-3.56%)	⬇️
.../scala/com.snowplowanalytics/forex/OerClient.scala	96.72% <95.83%> (ø)
... and 1 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1ac01d9...964b93b. Read the comment docs.

[chuwy]

I have one major concern around our Eval/IO evaluation model. I think we should prioritize the smoke testing with Spark to figure out if we chose the right path at all.

Another, much less important thought is that switching from constrained data constructors to constrained methods will be more inline with FP conventions.

Apart from that LGTM.