CODEWITHSUNDEEP
scalaslick
Richard Pianka
Richard Pianka

Reputation: 3366

Slick 2.0 and IntelliJ, highlighting errors

I'm in the process of migrating to Slick 2.0.0-RC1 (from 1.x), and I'm having trouble getting IntelliJ to recognize the lifted embedding implicits around the TableQuery statements. However, everything does compile, in both IntelliJ and sbt (read: play). I started by leveraging the new code generation feature, and just now I grabbed snippets from slick-examples verbatim — both produce the same behavior.

Using the first example of lifted embedding (https://github.com/slick/slick-examples/blob/master/src/main/scala/com/typesafe/slick/examples/lifted/FirstExample.scala) the following two things occur:

Weirdly enough, using for-comprehensions doesn't produce any errors, however nothing has the right type information (ends up as an Any).

I'm positive that I've got the .simple._ import (it doesn't compile elsewhere without it). I've cleared all my caches, rerun my gen-idea, done full rebuilds, etc. with no progress. I'm running IntelliJ 12.1.6 Ultimate with the Scala 0.22.302 plugin. My own project uses SQLServer, but I tried the example with H2 and experienced the same thing.

Can someone point me in the right direction?

Upvotes: 0

Views: 1142

Answers (2)

Alfapalooza
Alfapalooza

Reputation: 1

I think this is just suppressing the error but calling it directly in the function worked for me: 

foreignKey("SUP_FK", supID, TableQuery[Suppliers])

Upvotes: 0

Richard Pianka
Richard Pianka

Reputation: 3366

I found a hack to get around this, but I'm really looking for something more robust. If I override SourceCodeGenerator, and then override the TableDef inside that, and then override the TableValueDef inside that, I can override the def code inside that to this:

override def code = s"lazy val $name = TableQuery[${TableClass.name}](tag => new ${TableClass.name}(tag))"

...and then I don't have problems with the macro not evaluating. It goes without saying that this isn't an ideal solution.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions