Implement recoverAndTry and recoverAllAndTry #2948
Conversation
|
Thanks for your submission! This is looking good! Give me a second to process it - I'm now in the process of scoping changes that could go into the next major version, and we don't often get a shot to make some backward-incompatible API changes |
|
Thanks for the review @pivovarit! Ah I see, alright. Maybe it is a better idea to make a pull request to version/0.x branch first? |
|
Hi @pivovarit Sorry just had time... Here is pull request into the version/1.x instead |
|
Hi! @atakanserin - I'm willing to merge this, but I'm afraid with all that merging and rebasing you ended up in a limbo between 1.x and 0.x :) Please check out |
atakanserin
force-pushed
the
recover-and-try
branch
from
7381e84 to
091493e
Compare
|
Hey @pivovarit ! I think I got you right, this is what I did: hard reset vavr:main onto recover-and-try Seems like it picked up today's dependabot commit. So seems up to date at least... Kindly review |
| * @return a {@code Try} that is either this {@code Success} or a new {@code Try} evaluated from {@code recoveryAttempt} | ||
| * @throws NullPointerException if {@code recoveryAttempt} is null | ||
| */ | ||
| public final Try<T> recoverAllAndTry(CheckedFunction0<? extends T> recoveryAttempt) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Didn't you mean default instead of final?
atakanserin
force-pushed
the
recover-and-try
branch
from
091493e to
788181e
Compare
|
Good morning @pivovarit Oh I see, it is an interface now. I should have checked before pushing... Changed it to a default method and ran all unit tests as well as javadoc check. They are passing locally. Hopefully should be fine now. |
atakanserin
force-pushed
the
recover-and-try
branch
from
788181e to
3fe664d
Compare
|
No worries, it's looking good now. I will double-check when I get home and planning to merge it if everything is ok - I see that workflows are running as well |
|
Many thanks! |
|
Thanks for your patience :) |
No description provided.