Skip to content

Conversation

@Godin
Copy link
Member

@Godin Godin commented Apr 8, 2025

Fixes #1036
Closes #1019

@Godin Godin self-assigned this Apr 8, 2025
@Godin Godin added this to Filtering Apr 8, 2025
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Awaiting triage in Filtering Apr 8, 2025
@Godin Godin moved this from Awaiting triage to In Progress in Filtering Apr 8, 2025
@Godin Godin added this to the 0.8.14 milestone Apr 8, 2025
@Godin Godin force-pushed the kotlin_suspend_tail_call branch from 87f620c to fa12016 Compare April 12, 2025 19:50
@Godin Godin force-pushed the kotlin_suspend_tail_call branch from fa12016 to 597ff8a Compare April 14, 2025 08:32
@Godin Godin marked this pull request as ready for review April 14, 2025 15:10
@Godin Godin requested a review from leveretka April 14, 2025 15:10
suspension() // assertFullyCovered()
else // assertEmpty()
noSuspension() // assertFullyCovered()
} // assertEmpty()
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was looking at the test and the implementation.
It looks like with this implementation we'll ignore the return from the function. So we won't show it as red if, for example suspension() function throws an exception. Am I right or I am missing anything here?

Nevertheless, I don't think I have a better idea how to workaround this, so this solution is still better than the current behavior(at the moment it's always red if the last suspending function call contains suspending function invocations).

@Godin Godin modified the milestones: 0.8.14, 0.8.15 Oct 8, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

Status: In Progress

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Closing branch of suspend unit functions marked as not covered

2 participants