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
Possible Regression in 2.12.0-RC1: "recursive value ... needs type" #9917
Comments
Imported From: https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-9917?orig=1 |
@szeiger said: |
@adriaanm said: |
@SethTisue said: That PR didn't have the "release notes" tag, but it does now. |
Chua Chee Seng (cheeseng) said: Thanks for the replies, another worrying concern we have is the compile/build time seems to have grown 3x as compared to 2.11.8/2.12.0-M5, here's the measurement using my machine doing a full ScalaTest build: 2.11.8 - 681s Shall we create a new separate issue for the compile time performance problem? Thanks. |
@SethTisue said: |
Hi we are trying to build ScalaTest using the latest 2.12.0-RC1, but we hit a weird problem when compiling our source. To reproduce the problem, you can git clone the the following branch:
https://github.com/cheeseng/scalatest/tree/scala-2.12.0-RC1-error
cd into it and do a:
it will fail with error like the following:
[error] /home/cheeseng/git/scalatest/scalatest/src/main/scala/org/scalatest/selenium/WebBrowser.scala:4610: recursive value firefoxProfile needs type
[error] implicit val webDriver = new FirefoxDriver(firefoxProfile)
[error] ^
[error] /home/cheeseng/git/scalatest/scalatest/src/main/scala/org/scalatest/selenium/WebBrowser.scala:4616: could not find implicit value for parameter driver: org.openqa.selenium.WebDriver
[error] capture to directory
[error] ^
[warn] 10 warnings found
[error] two errors found
The code had no issue with 2.10, 2.11 and previous version of 2.12, and error message is misleading imho. We did a quick by by sticking:
implicit val webDriver: WebDriver = new FirefoxDriver(firefoxProfile)
and it fixed both the error above. It does not really makes sense to us, and since it is a RC release, we think we should report here in case it is a regression.
Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: