-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
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
More fine-grained exclusions (static vs non-static method problems) #381
Comments
I'm happy to add a subtype thing, for this case. Could you craft a minimiser, please? |
While MiMa could most definitely use "more fine-grained exclusions", I'm going to close this in favour of the more specific issue on handling the change in static forward generation #388, which doesn't have any implementation decisions (or compromises) like we were discussing here. |
Actually, I've changed my mind. Though let's keep the scope limited to the static/non-static use-case presented. |
Changes to static forwarder generation in scalac may require exclusion for
DirectMissingMethodProblem
but those are quite heavy-handed and may mask actual problems later on (e.g. see https://github.com/akka/akka-http/pull/2656/files#diff-0744dca53576695333760d7659be094fR48). Instead it would be good if you could distinguish static vs. normal methods.If it would only be for
DirectMissingMethodProblem
I guess it could be solved by a subtypeDirectMissingStaticMethodProblem
that could be excluded specifically. Another possibility could be to allow adding some modifiers to the exclusion string (that would help when you would like to filter other problems in a similar way).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: