-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 420
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
Allow to finish()
GRPCAsyncRequestStreamWriter sync, non-throwing
#1504
Merged
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f91f6d3
Add sync method variant for finishing RequestStreamWriter
schwmi 116fbe8
Adjust call sites to use sync RequestStreamWriter finish
schwmi 79107d3
Merge branch 'main' into improvement/sync-writer-finish
glbrntt 6e52439
Remove async variant of GRPCAsyncRequestStreamWriter's .finish()
schwmi 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
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
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
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.
The CI is emitting a bunch of failures because these calls now appear to be ambiguous (which is a little surprising):
Could you try marking the async throwing version as
@available(*, deprecated)
?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, this makes sense: I'm not surprised here. The compiler will prefer the
async
one inasync
contexts. I think the correct fix is@disfavoredOverload
, though I don't know if it can override the preference for theasync
method.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 suppose that makes sense. I was also wondering about
@disfavoredOverload
but was hoping deprecating theasync
variant may implicitly disfavour it (and there's no reason to use the async version, so deprecating it makes sense).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.
Tried out both approaches with
@_disfavoredOverload
and also@available(*, deprecated)
. Unfortunately seems both cannot overwrite the preference forasync
.Think either we prefix the sync version somehow (like
syncFinish
) so that it can be shipped in a minor version update or we hold this back until the next major version bump.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 think our original assertion that removing the
async throws
from finish is API breaking may be incorrect.swift package diagnose-api-breaking-changes
does not detect any breaking changes when removingasync throws
(it does if you add them back). The side effect of removing them is warnings for unused occurrence oftry
andawait
.So -- unless I'm missing something (cc @Lukasa) -- we should just be able to remove
async throws
from the existingfinish()
.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'm open to removing those if we're confident that nothing breaks.
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.
Checked that for the internal calls to
finish()