-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
Enable breakout in Reducible[NonEmptyVector].reduceMapA #3549
Enable breakout in Reducible[NonEmptyVector].reduceMapA #3549
Conversation
@@ -16,22 +16,6 @@ import org.scalacheck.Prop._ | |||
|
|||
class ReducibleSuiteAdditional extends CatsSuite { | |||
|
|||
test("Reducible[NonEmptyList].reduceLeftM stack safety") { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
duplicated test
test(s"Reducible[$name].reduceLeftM stack safety")
bed5e66
to
5ecb2c5
Compare
Nice test refactoring. It discovered another possible improvement. I think you can change also here
def reduceRightTo[A, B](fa: NonEmptyLazyList[A])(f: A => B)(g: (A, cats.Eval[B]) => cats.Eval[B]): cats.Eval[B] =
Eval.defer(fa.reduceRightTo(a => Eval.later(f(a))) { (a, b) =>
Eval.defer(g(a, b))
}) |
@@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ sealed abstract private[data] class NonEmptyLazyListInstances extends NonEmptyLa | |||
def reduceLeftTo[A, B](fa: NonEmptyLazyList[A])(f: A => B)(g: (B, A) => B): B = fa.reduceLeftTo(f)(g) | |||
|
|||
def reduceRightTo[A, B](fa: NonEmptyLazyList[A])(f: A => B)(g: (A, cats.Eval[B]) => cats.Eval[B]): cats.Eval[B] = | |||
Eval.defer(fa.reduceRightTo(a => Eval.now(f(a))) { (a, b) => | |||
Eval.defer(fa.reduceRightTo(a => Eval.defer(f(a))) { (a, b) => |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Eval.defer(fa.reduceRightTo(a => Eval.defer(f(a))) { (a, b) => | |
Eval.defer(fa.reduceRightTo(a => Eval.later(f(a))) { (a, b) => |
5fb1f4a
to
3df95de
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3549 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 91.30% 91.30%
=======================================
Files 386 386
Lines 8565 8565
Branches 255 248 -7
=======================================
Hits 7820 7820
Misses 745 745 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
4115b94
to
0ac03a6
Compare
.jvmopts
Outdated
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
-Dfile.encoding=UTF8 | |||
-Xms1G | |||
-Xmx5G | |||
-Xmx6G |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this required by the JS build ? I'm asking as if that's the case we might have a look at how those builds go when this #3546 is in. We might not need this increase anymore. What do you think ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We might not need this increase anymore. What do you think ?
Indeed.
#3546 is already merged so remove this commit.
951cb74
to
b77952b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks a lot @takayahilton 👍
No description provided.