fix: update Workflow::Future binding with named block#498
Open
chris-olszewski wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
fix: update Workflow::Future binding with named block#498chris-olszewski wants to merge 2 commits into
Workflow::Future binding with named block#498chris-olszewski wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Sushisource
approved these changes
Jul 22, 2026
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What was changed
Workflow::Futureconstructor RBI typing now takes a named&blockinstead of an anonymous one, matching the implementationSigApplicatorso it now compares sig params with implementation params even for classes that we cannot instrument because of their use of generics.Why?
Saw #494, wanted to address the gap in our RBI verification.
Checklist
Closes Fix anonymous block parameter in Workflow::Future RBI #494
How was this tested:
Added unit test for
SigApplicatorchange, verified that the changes catch the RBI typing mismatch.Any docs updates needed?
N/A