[755] zio-schema breaking update #785
Conversation
| @@ -44,7 +44,9 @@ object EmbeddedRedisSpec extends ZIOSpecDefault { | |||
| ).provideShared( | |||
| EmbeddedRedis.layer.orDie, | |||
| RedisExecutor.layer.orDie, | |||
| ZLayer.succeed[BinaryCodec](ProtobufCodec), | |||
| ZLayer.succeed[CodecSupplier](new CodecSupplier { | |||
| override implicit def codec[A: Schema]: BinaryCodec[A] = ProtobufCodec.protobufCodec | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| override implicit def codec[A: Schema]: BinaryCodec[A] = ProtobufCodec.protobufCodec | |
| implicit def codec[A: Schema]: BinaryCodec[A] = ProtobufCodec.protobufCodec |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| abstract class ArbitraryInput[-A] extends Input[A] {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Two things:
- let's put it in
Inputcompanion - let's seal it (it could be
traitif I'm not mistaken)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah yeah, this is leftover, i was trying something, to split input and arbitrary input, but i think we don't need this at all in the end
| trait CodecSupplier { | ||
| implicit def codec[A: Schema]: BinaryCodec[A] | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A few remarks here:
- let's rename to
CodecSupplier - let's rename method to
get - let's remove implicit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- it's already called
CodecSupplieror am i not seeing the difference? - ok sure
- let me check if it's not used somewhere, if not i'll remove
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, typo 🤦♂️ I wanted to write CodecProvider.
redis/src/test/scala/zio/redis/codecs/ProtobufCodecSupplier.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| protected def executor: RedisExecutor | ||
|
|
||
| implicit def summonCodec[A: Schema]: BinaryCodec[A] = codec.codec |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, we have to "summon" the implicit codec, without this you get like 600 error when trying to compile, is there a better way you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I presume the only way around it would be to call codec.get everywhere, right?
not sure which fixes should i revert, because those "fixes" were actual fixes :D without them mdoc complained about not being able to compile code examples, so imho it would just fail on a different step of a workflow |
#755