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

Support boring on original Module after .toInstance call #4602

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 9, 2025

Conversation

jackkoenig
Copy link
Contributor

Note that simply using the "current ports" in Lookupable is totally fine. It's not possible to see BoringUtils introduced ports via @public so their visibility in the ports seen by Lookupable is irrelevant.

I waffled on if I think this should be legal or not. What eventually convinced me was the following: One of the main reasons .toInstance exists is to write generators that work with both normal Modules and with D/I Instances. What is the purpose of such parameterization in a generator? Obviously, this exists because the user may want to do things that only Modules can do (i.e., that don't work on Instances). One of the most common things in this category is boring, which you can do to Modules but obviously cannot do to Instances. Thus we should make sure it's allowed. I will also note that @azidar in the original PR barred boring after calling .toDefinition, but [I'm assuming] deliberately did not bar it after .toInstance.

Contributor Checklist

  • Did you add Scaladoc to every public function/method?
  • Did you add at least one test demonstrating the PR?
  • Did you delete any extraneous printlns/debugging code?
  • Did you specify the type of improvement?
  • Did you add appropriate documentation in docs/src?
  • Did you request a desired merge strategy?
  • Did you add text to be included in the Release Notes for this change?

Type of Improvement

  • Bugfix

Desired Merge Strategy

  • Squash

Release Notes

Reviewer Checklist (only modified by reviewer)

  • Did you add the appropriate labels? (Select the most appropriate one based on the "Type of Improvement")
  • Did you mark the proper milestone (Bug fix: 3.6.x, 5.x, or 6.x depending on impact, API modification or big change: 7.0)?
  • Did you review?
  • Did you check whether all relevant Contributor checkboxes have been checked?
  • Did you do one of the following when ready to merge:
    • Squash: You/ the contributor Enable auto-merge (squash), clean up the commit message, and label with Please Merge.
    • Merge: Ensure that contributor has cleaned up their commit history, then merge with Create a merge commit.

@jackkoenig jackkoenig added the Bugfix Fixes a bug, will be included in release notes label Jan 8, 2025
@jackkoenig jackkoenig added this to the 6.x milestone Jan 8, 2025
@jackkoenig jackkoenig requested review from azidar and mwachs5 January 8, 2025 22:40
@jackkoenig jackkoenig merged commit 4d162c4 into main Jan 9, 2025
18 checks passed
@jackkoenig jackkoenig deleted the jackkoenig/toinstance-then-bore branch January 9, 2025 17:20
@mergify mergify bot added the Backported This PR has been backported label Jan 9, 2025
mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 9, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Backported This PR has been backported Bugfix Fixes a bug, will be included in release notes
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants