Compatibility with crypton-1.1.#1916
Open
leftaroundabout wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
That package has switched from `memory` to the fork `ram` (kazu-yamamoto/crypton@7912865). `yesod-static` still imported `Data.ByteArray` from `memory` though, leading to a confusing error about a missing instance of `ByteArrayAccess (Digest MD5)`, because `ByteArrayAccess` comes from `memory` but `crypton` only defines an instance of the `ram` version of `ByteArrayAccess`.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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
cryptonpackage has switched frommemoryto its forkram.yesod-staticstill importedData.ByteArrayfrommemorythough, leading to a confusing error about a missing instance ofByteArrayAccess (Digest MD5), becauseByteArrayAccesscame frommemorybutcryptononly defines an instance of theramversion ofByteArrayAccess.Note: I haven't checked the
rampackage very closely to see whether the switch is actually a good idea. An alternative would be to define the instances elsewhere. But the argument oframis thatmemoryis now unsupported, so switching to another package is perhaps unavoidable in the long term.Haven't bumped any versions or changelog, not sure that's applicable for a change like this?