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.

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 Unit Tests for Boring to Port Scenarios #4154

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mwachs5
Copy link
Contributor

@mwachs5 mwachs5 commented Jun 7, 2024

Contributor Checklist

  • Did you add Scaladoc to every public function/method?
  • Did you add at least one test demonstrating the PR?
  • Did you delete any extraneous printlns/debugging code?
  • Did you specify the type of improvement?
  • Did you add appropriate documentation in docs/src?
  • Did you request a desired merge strategy?
  • Did you add text to be included in the Release Notes for this change?

Type of Improvement

Demonstrates #4155

  • Feature (or new API)
  • API modification
  • API deprecation
  • Backend code generation
  • Performance improvement
  • Bugfix
  • Documentation or website-related
  • Dependency update
  • Internal or build-related (includes code refactoring/cleanup)

Desired Merge Strategy

  • Squash: The PR will be squashed and merged (choose this if you have no preference).
  • Rebase: You will rebase the PR onto master and it will be merged with a merge commit.

Release Notes

Reviewer Checklist (only modified by reviewer)

  • Did you add the appropriate labels? (Select the most appropriate one based on the "Type of Improvement")
  • Did you mark the proper milestone (Bug fix: 3.6.x, 5.x, or 6.x depending on impact, API modification or big change: 7.0)?
  • Did you review?
  • Did you check whether all relevant Contributor checkboxes have been checked?
  • Did you do one of the following when ready to merge:
    • Squash: You/ the contributor Enable auto-merge (squash), clean up the commit message, and label with Please Merge.
    • Merge: Ensure that contributor has cleaned up their commit history, then merge with Create a merge commit.

@mwachs5 mwachs5 changed the title Boring properties extmodule Unit Tests for Boring to ExtModule Property ports Jun 7, 2024
@mwachs5 mwachs5 changed the title Unit Tests for Boring to ExtModule Property ports More Unit Tests for Boring to Port Scenarios Jun 7, 2024
Comment on lines +260 to +266
case (rhs: Element, (module, _))
if ((up || isDriveDone(reifySingleData(rhs).get)) && module == path(0) && isPort(
reifySingleData(rhs).get
) &&
(!createProbe.nonEmpty || !createProbe.get.writable)) => {
// So far we can handle ports that are views of single elements only.
reifySingleData(rhs).get.asInstanceOf[A]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
case (rhs: Element, (module, _))
if ((up || isDriveDone(reifySingleData(rhs).get)) && module == path(0) && isPort(
reifySingleData(rhs).get
) &&
(!createProbe.nonEmpty || !createProbe.get.writable)) => {
// So far we can handle ports that are views of single elements only.
reifySingleData(rhs).get.asInstanceOf[A]
case (rhs: Element, (module, _))
if ((up || isDriveDone(reifySingleData(rhs).get)) && module == path(0) && isPort(
reify(rhs)
) &&
(!createProbe.nonEmpty || !createProbe.get.writable)) => {
// So far we can handle ports that are views of single elements only.
reify(rhs).asInstanceOf[A]

Since rhs is an Element you should be able to use reify which is Element => Element.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants