Breaking changes on ServiceActor::Result `failure?` after dropping `ostruct` ??? about actor HOT 5 CLOSED

Passing 'failure?: true' is very handy in specs for testing expected error handling. Please don't remove it.

It wouldn't be removed, it would be changed from failure?: true to failure: true. It isn't common to use hash keys using ?

from actor.

Oh indeed, we didn’t think of people who would intentionaly create results with failure? as a key. This is now fixed in v3.9.0.

Thank you for bringing this up @stephannv 🙏🏻

from actor.

Yeah I wouldn’t mind gently deprecating it but I think it’s also fine to accept both failure?: true and failure: true as keys.

from actor.

Oh indeed, we didn’t think of people who would intentionaly create results with failure? as a key.

If you consider failure? hash option was a private API and shouldn't be used, you could keep it breaking or you could deprecate it to remove on 4.x

from actor.

Passing 'failure?: true' is very handy in specs for testing expected error handling. Please don't remove it.

from actor.