CodexBloom - Programming Q&A Platform

Scala 3.1 Pattern Matching with Sealed Traits - Unexpected Match Errors

👀 Views: 37 đŸ’Ŧ Answers: 1 📅 Created: 2025-07-31
scala sealed-traits pattern-matching Scala

I've tried everything I can think of but I'm not sure how to approach I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm working with issues with pattern matching on sealed traits in Scala 3.1... I have a sealed trait hierarchy for my domain model, which includes a base trait `Message` and two case classes `TextMessage` and `ImageMessage`. The scenario arises when I try to match against a `List[Message]`. Unexpectedly, it seems that the compiler is not recognizing one of the case classes for pattern matching, resulting in a match behavior. Here's a simplified version of my code: ```scala sealed trait Message case class TextMessage(content: String) extends Message case class ImageMessage(url: String) extends Message def processMessages(messages: List[Message]): Unit = { messages.foreach { case TextMessage(content) => println(s"Text: $content") case ImageMessage(url) => println(s"Image URL: $url") case _ => println("Unknown message type") } } val messages: List[Message] = List(TextMessage("Hello"), ImageMessage("http://example.com/image.jpg"), "Some random string") processMessages(messages) ``` When I execute this code, I receive a match behavior when it hits the invalid string in the list, which is expected. However, I also get an behavior when I have a valid case class in the list. The behavior message is: ``` match behavior: no match found ``` I've double-checked that my case classes are correctly defined and included in the sealed trait hierarchy. I suspect it might be related to how Scala 3 handles pattern matching with lists of sealed traits. Has anyone experienced this scenario or can provide insights into why the pattern matching fails in this case? Are there best practices for ensuring that all case classes are matched correctly in a sealed trait hierarchy? What's the best practice here? What am I doing wrong? Has anyone dealt with something similar?