-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.1k
Support for definitions with no build model #36036
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
d6d5fee to
7a0fbed
Compare
|
@bot-gradle test this |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
The following builds have been cancelled: |
7a0fbed to
3ff7c90
Compare
hfhbd
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you please also add a Kotlin integration test using the reinfined generics method with BuildModel.None? Will it work out if the box or will creating a BuildModel.None throw and we need a special generic function see #35870?
@hfhbd Yes, this should work just fine. I've added a test that demonstrates it. We use a fixture to generate the class, so it's kind of hard to see what it looks like just looking at the code, but it generates a binding class that looks like this: |
This allows project features to be registerd with no build model (i.e. with
BuildModel.None). Other features can still bind to the feature's definition. Any feature that attempts to bind to a build model ofNonewill get an error.Fixes #35869
Reviewing cheatsheet
Before merging the PR, comments starting with