-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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
Exhaustivity warnings on nested case classes #13030
Merged
dwijnand
merged 1 commit into
scala:master
from
dwijnand:exhaust-case-class-in-case-class
Jul 12, 2021
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
File renamed without changes.
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 +1,4 @@ | ||
4: Pattern Match Exhaustivity: One(Two(None)) | ||
7: Pattern Match Exhaustivity: Two(None) | ||
10: Pattern Match Exhaustivity: None, Some(None) | ||
13: Pattern Match Exhaustivity: None, Some(None), Some(Some(None)) |
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 +1,14 @@ | ||
case class One(two: Two) | ||
case class Two(o: Option[Int]) | ||
|
||
def matchOneTwo(one: One) = one match | ||
case One(Two(Some(i))) => "match!" | ||
|
||
def matchTwo(two: Two) = two match | ||
case Two(Some(i)) => "match!" | ||
|
||
def matchOO(oo: Option[Option[Int]]) = oo match | ||
case Some(Some(i)) => "match!" | ||
|
||
def matchOOO(ooo: Option[Option[Option[Int]]]) = ooo match | ||
case Some(Some(Some(i))) => "match!" |
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.
It seems
false
aligns better with the protocol that if a component issealed
, then perform the check.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.
Given something like
case class Foo(parent: Option[Foo], other: Bar)
this else branch is hit when we've runningisCheckable(Foo)
on the Foo in the Option. My thinking is we can optimistically returntrue
here, and then whether or notBar
is checkable will determine if the topFoo
is checkable. So I thinktrue
is right here, no?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.
Given the following type:
IIRC, the implementation above will have
isCheckable(A) == true
. If that's as expected, thentrue
is fine. Otherwise, it seemsfalse
should be used here.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.
Yeah, I'm happy with that result.