Draft
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Marcin Iwanicki <iwan@icode.pl>
marciniwanicki
force-pushed
the
mi/silence-CustomStringConvertible-warnings
branch
from
91ec5b3 to
aa365a2
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
@retroactiveattribute in Swift is a compiler directive used in extensions to explicitly acknowledge that a type is being conformed to a protocol when the developer owns neither. When applied toCustomStringConvertible, it instructs the compiler to accept our custom description implementation despite the "retroactive" conformance, which could conflict with future versions of the original module.Currently,
CustomStringConvertibleis not implemented in XcodeProj. However, if an implementation is added there in the future, the resolution behavior (whether the XcodeProj or local xcdiff implementation is used) will be non-deterministic (as far as I understand). We will likely need to revisit our approach at that time.Test Plan: