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

Return FunSpec.Builder from jvmModifiers to not break chaining #2004

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Egorand
Copy link
Collaborator

@Egorand Egorand commented Oct 15, 2024

Fixes #638.

  • docs/changelog.md has been updated if applicable.
    • Changes not visible to library consumers, such as build script, documentation, or test code updates, don't need to
      be added to the changelog.

@Egorand Egorand force-pushed the egor.241015.jvm-modifiers-builder branch from 6c3b3ba to c41edf9 Compare October 15, 2024 10:25
Copy link
Collaborator

@JakeWharton JakeWharton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This breaks binary compatibility. We need to retain the old signature and use @JvmName on the new one.

@Egorand
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Egorand commented Oct 15, 2024

The plan is to ship this as part of 2.0, or 3.0, or do you think we shouldn't be breaking binary compat regardless? I'd actually like to clean up some deprecated APIs in either 2.0 or 3.0.

@JakeWharton
Copy link
Collaborator

I definitely would not break anything for 2.0. The sole behavior change is the wrapping change, though that doesn't break anything. In 3.0 we could move deprecations to be hidden. I don't want someone to have a reason not to upgrade due to compatibility.

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.

jvmModifiers doesn't return the Builder
2 participants