Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Rework parJoin to work with transformers #2563

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Sep 14, 2021
Merged

Rework parJoin to work with transformers #2563

merged 5 commits into from
Sep 14, 2021

Conversation

vasilmkd
Copy link
Member

Resolves #1945.

@vasilmkd vasilmkd changed the title Rework parJoin to work with transformers Rework parJoin to work with transformers Aug 18, 2021
@vasilmkd vasilmkd marked this pull request as ready for review August 18, 2021 22:38
diesalbla
diesalbla reviewed Aug 21, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@diesalbla diesalbla left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few comments, on small details.

core/shared/src/main/scala/fs2/Stream.scala Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
core/shared/src/main/scala/fs2/Stream.scala Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
core/shared/src/main/scala/fs2/Stream.scala Show resolved Hide resolved
@vasilmkd
Copy link
Member Author

Is it enough to just run the MemoryLeakSpec locally or how do you usually test that aspect?

@vasilmkd
Copy link
Member Author

I only rebased on the latest changes to the main branch, I did not make any code changes.

@diesalbla
Copy link
Contributor

Is it enough to just run the MemoryLeakSpec locally or how do you usually test that aspect?

We used to have them run on the CI server, but the CI servers were a bit flaky; normally we just run them locally.

@vasilmkd
Copy link
Member Author

Sorry it took me a while, I got properly set up with JDK 16+ and I ran the leak tests, they passed without issues.

@mpilquist mpilquist merged commit 265a230 into typelevel:main Sep 14, 2021
@vasilmkd vasilmkd deleted the newparjoin branch September 14, 2021 11:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@diesalbla diesalbla diesalbla approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Stream.parJoin freezes using an EitherT as effect context
3 participants
@vasilmkd @diesalbla @mpilquist