Fix #11939: Set up MiMa for scala3-interfaces in scala3-library. #12371

sjrd · 2021-05-07T14:22:45Z

This already detects a couple things that break the backward source compatibility guarantee. They are excluded in project/MiMaFilters.scala. They should be reverted before we publish 3.0.1, or we should jump straight to 3.1.0.

smarter · 2021-05-07T14:24:54Z

project/MiMaFilters.scala

+    // !!! These things are already violating the source compatibility guarantees of 3.0.1
+    // They need to be reverted, or we need to set the next version to 3.1.0
+    exclude[DirectMissingMethodProblem]("scala.quoted.Quotes#reflectModule#TermParamClauseMethods.isErased"),
+    exclude[ReversedMissingMethodProblem]("scala.quoted.Quotes#reflectModule#TermParamClauseMethods.isErased"),
+    exclude[MissingClassProblem]("scala.annotation.internal.ErasedParam"),
+    exclude[MissingClassProblem]("scala.annotation.internal.Stable"),


@nicolasstucki WDYT? Should we revert or mark these things as @experimental?

isErased should be reverted and added in 3.1. This includes scala.annotation.internal.ErasedParam. I guess adding @experimental would make sense here as some users might be using it already from nightly.

No idea about scala.annotation.internal.Stable. @odersky can we revert this or add @experimental

Added the @exerimentalon ErasedParam and isErased in #12102

No idea about scala.annotation.internal.Stable. @odersky can we revert this or add @experimental

It was introduced in #12159. Could we use the existing scala.annotation.unchecked.uncheckedStable instead? /cc @abgruszecki

It's possible we could, yes. Does the fact that @Stable is only added by the compiler change anything here? I'm not sure what's the exact problem here, is it that at runtime we could have an older version of stdlib and there could be no scala.annotation.internal.Stable?

Does the fact that @stable is only added by the compiler change anything here?

That helps with source compatibility but not binary/tasty-compatibility.

is it that at runtime we could have an older version of stdlib and there could be no scala.annotation.internal.Stable?

Exactly, and we have to consider not only binary-compatibility but tasty-compatibility (e.g. if I'm in a 3.0.0 project and I call an inline def defined in a 3.0.1 project that contains @Stable somewhere in its body, that would likely lead to a compiler error).

@sjrd we will need to exclude scala.annotation.experimental

@smarter so how should I go about fixing @Stable? In a separate PR?

@abgruszecki Sure.

@sjrd if you rebase all remaining excludes (experimental, isErased and ErasedParam) should now be @experimental.

smarter · 2021-05-07T14:28:48Z

project/Build.scala

+  /** Version against which we check binary compatibility.
+   *
+   *  This must be the latest published release in the same versioning line.
+   *  For example, if the next version is going to be 3.1.4, then this must be
+   *  set to 3.1.3. If it is going to be 3.1.0, it must be set to the latest
+   *  3.0.x release.
+   */


Can't we derive this from the version number?

No. When the base version is 3.1.0, how do you know what's the previous version? It could be any 3.0.x for any value of x. You don't know without going through all the published version to determine which one is the latest 3.0.x.

but couldn't you use 3.0.0 as a base (likewise for 3.0.2)? That means we can't reset the whitelist after every release but I don't think that's a big deal?

We could get away with that. That's not the established practice, though. And it means that you lose the ability to reasonably check experimental stuff that you introduce in the meantime, which you'd like not to accidentally break, at least.

IMO that's not a good trade off, but I can change if you prefer that it be automatically determined.

I think it's fine as is if it's established practice, but we need to add the need to update these variables to the release checklist /cc @anatoliykmetyuk

sjrd · 2021-05-11T15:49:50Z

Rebased.

smarter

Otherwise LGTM.

smarter · 2021-05-11T16:14:01Z

project/MiMaFilters.scala

+    exclude[DirectMissingMethodProblem]("scala.quoted.Quotes#reflectModule#TermParamClauseMethods.isErased"),
+    exclude[ReversedMissingMethodProblem]("scala.quoted.Quotes#reflectModule#TermParamClauseMethods.isErased"),
+    exclude[MissingClassProblem]("scala.annotation.internal.ErasedParam"),
+    exclude[MissingClassProblem]("scala.annotation.internal.Stable"),


This class doesn't exist anymore.

Also isn't this missing experimental itself?

nafg · 2021-05-11T16:20:30Z

Why can't you automate looking up the last version? If checking Maven Central is too expensive, can you use v* git tags?

…

On Fri, May 7, 2021, 10:47 AM Sébastien Doeraene ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In project/Build.scala <#12371 (comment)>: > + /** Version against which we check binary compatibility. + * + * This must be the latest published release in the same versioning line. + * For example, if the next version is going to be 3.1.4, then this must be + * set to 3.1.3. If it is going to be 3.1.0, it must be set to the latest + * 3.0.x release. + */ No. When the base version is 3.1.0, how do you know what's the previous version? It could be any 3.0.x for any value of *x*. You don't know without going through all the published version to determine which one is the latest 3.0.x. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#12371 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAYAUG2VF7KUKWJTNXEY4TTMP4PLANCNFSM44KG6EOA> .

sjrd · 2021-05-11T19:48:31Z

Why can't you automate looking up the last version? If checking Maven Central is too expensive, can you use v* git tags?

It's not a question of efficiency. It's a question of build reproducibility. A commit that builds today may fail to build in the future if we publish a new patch version in the meantime that introduces a new experimental method.

Therefore, the git tag has the same issue as the Maven Central lookup.

nicolasstucki · 2021-05-12T08:55:53Z

project/MiMaFilters.scala

+    exclude[DirectMissingMethodProblem]("scala.quoted.Quotes#reflectModule#TermParamClauseMethods.isErased"),
+    exclude[ReversedMissingMethodProblem]("scala.quoted.Quotes#reflectModule#TermParamClauseMethods.isErased"),
+    exclude[MissingClassProblem]("scala.annotation.internal.ErasedParam"),
+    exclude[MissingClassProblem]("scala.annotation.internal.Stable"),


Suggested change

exclude[MissingClassProblem]("scala.annotation.internal.Stable"),

exclude[MissingClassProblem]("scala.annotation.experimental"),

Oops, yes. Fixed.

sjrd · 2021-05-12T09:26:45Z

The test_windows_fast keeps aborting itself. I don't know why.

smarter · 2021-05-15T18:36:36Z

The test_windows_fast keeps aborting itself. I don't know why.

Didn't happen after restarting the jobs so I'll assume this is spurious.

sjrd requested a review from smarter May 7, 2021 14:22

sjrd assigned smarter May 7, 2021

smarter reviewed May 7, 2021

View reviewed changes

smarter added this to the 3.0.1-RC1 milestone May 10, 2021

sjrd force-pushed the setup-mima branch from 640c9a8 to 61d0d6c Compare May 11, 2021 15:49

smarter approved these changes May 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

smarter assigned sjrd and unassigned smarter May 11, 2021

nicolasstucki reviewed May 12, 2021

View reviewed changes

Fix scala#11939: Set up MiMa for scala3-interfaces in scala3-library.

6ba8a39

sjrd force-pushed the setup-mima branch from 61d0d6c to 6ba8a39 Compare May 12, 2021 09:05

This was referenced May 12, 2021

Add Expr.valueOrAbort and reflect.report.errorAndAbort #12056

Merged

Add quoted.Type.valueOfTuple #12423

Merged

Rename reflect.Type { memberXyz => xyzMember } #12322

Merged

smarter approved these changes May 15, 2021

View reviewed changes

smarter merged commit 83e17f1 into scala:master May 15, 2021

smarter deleted the setup-mima branch May 15, 2021 18:37

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix #11939: Set up MiMa for scala3-interfaces in scala3-library. #12371

Fix #11939: Set up MiMa for scala3-interfaces in scala3-library. #12371

sjrd commented May 7, 2021

smarter May 7, 2021

nicolasstucki May 10, 2021

nicolasstucki May 10, 2021

smarter May 10, 2021

abgruszecki May 10, 2021

smarter May 10, 2021

nicolasstucki May 10, 2021 •

edited

Loading

abgruszecki May 10, 2021

smarter May 10, 2021

smarter May 11, 2021

smarter May 7, 2021

sjrd May 7, 2021

smarter May 7, 2021

sjrd May 7, 2021

smarter May 7, 2021

sjrd commented May 11, 2021

smarter left a comment

smarter May 11, 2021

smarter May 11, 2021

nicolasstucki May 12, 2021

nafg commented May 11, 2021 via email

sjrd commented May 11, 2021

nicolasstucki May 12, 2021

sjrd May 12, 2021

sjrd commented May 12, 2021

smarter commented May 15, 2021

	exclude[MissingClassProblem]("scala.annotation.internal.Stable"),
	exclude[MissingClassProblem]("scala.annotation.experimental"),

Fix #11939: Set up MiMa for scala3-interfaces in scala3-library. #12371

Fix #11939: Set up MiMa for scala3-interfaces in scala3-library. #12371

Conversation

sjrd commented May 7, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nicolasstucki May 10, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sjrd commented May 11, 2021

smarter left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nafg commented May 11, 2021 via email

sjrd commented May 11, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sjrd commented May 12, 2021

smarter commented May 15, 2021

nicolasstucki May 10, 2021 •

edited

Loading