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

1616 v4 catch up with v3 #1617

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 13, 2023
Merged

1616 v4 catch up with v3 #1617

merged 4 commits into from
Jul 13, 2023

Conversation

MarquessV
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Not many changes, despite how gnarly the conflicts were.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I removed this, as we don't have any current plans to add a compatibility module. I can re-instate it if we decide we need it.

@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ def __init__(
execution_options_builder = ExecutionOptionsBuilder()
execution_options_builder.connection_strategy = ConnectionStrategy.default()
if endpoint_id is not None:
execution_options_builder.connection_strategy(ConnectionStrategy.endpoint_id(endpoint_id))
execution_options_builder.connection_strategy = ConnectionStrategy.endpoint_id(endpoint_id)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

squashing a pre-existing bug

)
program = program.copy_everything_except_instructions()
assert len(program.instructions) == 0 # the purpose of copy_everything_except_instructions()
assert len(program.declarations) == 0 # this is a view on the instructions member; must be consistent
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This test addresses #1611 and was added to v3 in #1614. The implementation was handled separately for v4 in #1612 and didn't include this test, which is why it's showing up now, without an implementation.

@MarquessV MarquessV marked this pull request as ready for review July 13, 2023 20:59
@MarquessV MarquessV requested a review from a team as a code owner July 13, 2023 20:59
@MarquessV MarquessV merged commit 2139563 into v4 Jul 13, 2023
14 checks passed
@MarquessV MarquessV deleted the 1616-v4-catch-up-with-v3 branch July 13, 2023 21:00
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