Skip to content

Conversation

nhz2
Copy link
Member

@nhz2 nhz2 commented Oct 5, 2025

This method of the ZstdCompressor constructor is undocumented, untested, and appears not to be used downstream; therefore, this PR removes it.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 5, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 64.35%. Comparing base (b9630e6) to head (8f9724e).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #84      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   64.19%   64.35%   +0.16%     
==========================================
  Files           4        4              
  Lines         391      390       -1     
==========================================
  Hits          251      251              
+ Misses        140      139       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@nhz2 nhz2 changed the title Fix broken ZstdCompressor constructor Delete broken ZstdCompressor constructor Oct 5, 2025
@nhz2 nhz2 marked this pull request as ready for review October 5, 2025 20:01
@nhz2 nhz2 requested a review from mkitti October 5, 2025 20:01
@nhz2 nhz2 mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2025
@mkitti
Copy link
Member

mkitti commented Oct 5, 2025

This was the signature of the default constructor before I added endOp. I added it in case any code had used the default constructor directly.

@nhz2 nhz2 merged commit f8c6b20 into master Oct 5, 2025
18 checks passed
@nhz2 nhz2 deleted the nz/Fix-broken-constructor branch October 5, 2025 22:53
@mkitti
Copy link
Member

mkitti commented Oct 6, 2025

IMHO it might be slightly friendlier to deprecate the constructor first before removing it.

@nhz2
Copy link
Member Author

nhz2 commented Oct 6, 2025

It is hard to deprecate because, from what I can tell, there is no public way to get a cstream.

But I'll wait for a PR to add the deprecation warning, or for you to approve #83 before making the 0.8.7 release.

Also, I found this issue using JET.jl. Maybe we should add JET and ExplicitImports to CI somehow (though in my experience, they can have false positives, so I'm not sure how to handle that).

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