-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 323
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
Cache dataflow errors #7193
Merged
Merged
Cache dataflow errors #7193
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
7 changes: 7 additions & 0 deletions
7
test/micro-distribution/lib/Standard/Base/0.0.0-dev/src/Errors/Illegal_Argument.enso
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | ||
import project.Nothing.Nothing | ||
import project.Data.Text.Text | ||
|
||
type Illegal_Argument | ||
Error message cause=Nothing | ||
|
||
to_display_text self = "Illegal Argument: "+self.message |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 there any system in these checks at all (another example at https://github.com/enso-org/enso/pull/7205/files#diff-bfe95bc1ca4b016dccbab4fc97f23809a6c83d040de6ca8a6a615f02378e1a59R357)?
I am afraid we are just patching random parts of the Enso system without having a consistent classification of the objects and their roles. Everything seems to hold together just with some unit tests. At least we have them, but still...
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.
I don't see a connection between this and the mentioned PR other than that we deal with DataFlowError. Yes, it's patching (not so random) parts of the Enso system and so what is wrong with that?
Alternatively we shouldn't match on
AbstractTruffleException
at all and wrap it into something we can control. Is it a better solution? That's debatable.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.
It is perfectly pragmatic behavior. I am a huge fan of pragmatism. However sometimes I a masking myself - shouldn't we be more [rationalistic]http://wiki.apidesign.org/wiki/Rationalism) when designing a language?
Possibly more consistency than patching would make the language better...