Would you be up to at least providing a text gist (with file names anonymized) to show us what are the warnings? I know of some tools that could be of help.
dimitarvp
NobbZ
They are exampled in the very first post. I already fixed the 2 warnings about the deprecated sigil_r in module attributes…
So the remaining ~500 are really just “struct update is deprecated”.
0
sodapopcan
It shouldn’t be too much of a can of worms to create a Sourceror task to fix these (at the very least it would be kinda fun), though it believe it would be a can of worms to reverse it if necessary since there’s no way of knowing if the pattern matching was there before or not.
0
dimitarvp
Ah, I see. I believe stuff like ast-grep and/or gritql can rewrite those. Not sure I can find the time but I would try them if I were you – takes a little time to understand them but maybe an LLM can accelerate it.
That, or any of the Elixir-level tools like Sourceror.
0
sodapopcan
I think it would have to be Sourceror since my understanding is that this:
def foo(user) do
%User{user | name: "Foo"}
end
would need to become:
def foo(%User{} = user) do
%{user | name: "Foo"}
end
and
def foo do
user = get_user()
%User{user | name: "Foo"}
end
would have to become:
def foo do
%User{} = user = get_user()
%{user | name: "Foo}
end
Am I misunderstanding?
Also, I could very-well be under-estimating ast-grep and gritql 
0
dimitarvp
ast-grep and gritql are based on TreeSitter. Theoretically they could match like 80-90% of all Elixir (which is kind of ruined by various DSLs of course so they are tragically bad in f.ex. Ash projects). I have used both to crushing success for mass low-effort refactorings. Ultimately I gave up because I kept forgetting their syntax and it was just annoying to re-learn them every time I needed them (several times a year).
But the modern LLMs changed the equation.
1
sabiwara
Elixir Core Team
Given that pattern-matching is everywhere, I believe it could be a bit of a can of worms, e.g. the following cases:
Multiple clauses:
# if you add the %User{} = pattern here:
def foo(user, :foo), do: ...
# you will now fall-through here:
def foo(_user, _), do: ...
Comprehensions:
# assertive: raises if a `nil` slips in `users`
for user <- users, do: %User{user | credit: 0}
# silently filters out the `nil`, hiding a bug
for %User{} = user <- users, do: %{user | credit: 0}
Same point about assertiveness for with - you might now fallback to else instead of failing.
# captures
&%User{&1 | credit: 0}
# now we need a variable name
fn %User{} = user -> %{user | credit: 0} end
That being said, an automated task could still be very helpful to address the bulk of the cases that don’t have these issues, then manually fixing the rest.
Also worth mentioning: Styler went for simply replacing it by a map update.
6
sodapopcan
Eiji
The 21st century … A time when old-school developers watch a group of people that “spend all the day” on discussing which tool they need to avoid “annoying” work, forgetting entirely that they could simply pay someone to do it for them in the same time. For some reason, people prefer to talk about things rather than just get on with them. 
Just let me know if you need help with updating the code or its dependencies, optimising the code, fixing credo/dialyzer warnings, or working on a feature, enhancement, bug fix or test. There’s no need to discuss implementation details. All I need from you are three things: what you need to do, the data to be entered into the invoice template and a payment. Simple enough? Just send me a PM. 
1
zachdaniel
Creator of Ash
I don’t understand your point here. What does Ash have to do with treesitter?
EDIT: to be clear Elixir macros consist entirely of valid elixir syntax. You can 100% use AST based transformations with them. Igniter is AST based code generation, and it’s wildly powerful in combination with Ash specifically of the consistency and predictability of the structure.
1