-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 280
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
Make sure the docs use tuple field accesses #3235
Comments
Is there a trivial way to make these actual failures as a way to catch them systematically in CI so we can fix them iteratively ? |
What one can do is replace the depreciation warming with a hard error. A more efficient way would be to reimplements the mechanism I used for #3101 i.e. replace non tuple field accesses by the guessed tuple. That could possibly be excavated out of the above mentioned PR.
1 May 2021 12:44:04 Clément Robert ***@***.***>:
… Is there a trivial way to make these actual failures as a way to catch them systematically in CI so we can fix them iteratively ?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub[#3235 (comment)], or unsubscribe[https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABJJIIZWY7C6CRZV4N3XP2DTLPSQHANCNFSM432EDCKQ].
[###24x24:true###][Tracking image][https://github.com/notifications/beacon/ABJJII2NPBVUUOQEXDIR5GTTLPSQHA5CNFSM432EDCK2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOGGBD4UI.gif]
|
I am trying to partially address this in #3284 |
How much progress do you think you've accomplished in that PR @chummels ? |
I think I got rid of all the non-tuple field accesses in the cookbook with that PR. I'll continue to work on the docs, but I'm open to others helping. |
In #3970 I turned warnings into errors and got... zero (!) new error in the docs build. I think it's safe to close this now. |
Following #3101 and #3194, ambiguous field accesses have been deprecated. We however have still many examples in the doc which use the old ambiguous syntax.
We should (gradually) update the doc to make sure no field accesses are ambiguous.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: