Remove unused impl Satisfy for recipe types
#632
Merged
Conversation
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
Signed-off-by: Ryan Bottriell <ryan@bottriell.ca>
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #632 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 57.61% 57.69% +0.07%
==========================================
Files 215 215
Lines 15206 15184 -22
==========================================
- Hits 8761 8760 -1
+ Misses 6445 6424 -21
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
jrray
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It doesn't really make sense that recipes can satisfy package requests. Our v0 spec can do this (sometimes) because it shares so much code with the package spec type, but this becomes a really strange implementation to write once the v1 spec is introduced. Ultimately, we were not using this implementation at all so it makes sense to just remove it.