Fix type errors discovered by 1.20 - #23
Merged
Merged
Conversation
NeilMenne
approved these changes
Jun 9, 2026
NeilMenne
left a comment
NeilMenne
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't mind the behavior change. We'll get this out. Thanks for finding/fixing!
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
I noticed these errors after updating my companies app to elixir 1.20. The main change is in
from_string/1. Our tests were passing by accident. After reviewing it the old code, I didn't think thewithwas providing value. In reality it was likely making errors cases harder to understand. So, to make the errors more obvious I opted to raise an explicit ArgumentError if this function fails. This felt like the right call to make because we're returningTimestamp.t()and not{:ok, Timestamp.t()}, and because its really unlikely that anyone will call this function with anything other than a stringified Timestamp. But, its probably debatable. If other people feel strongly I can re-work this code.