> > I have yet to encounter this class of problem in the dtests. It's more about development velocity and convenience than about preventing defects in our case, since we're not abusing duck-typing everywhere. Every time I have to work on python dtests (for instance, when doing build lead work and looking at flaky tests) it's a little irritating and I think of this.
I would hate to expend loads of effort modernising them when the same > effort could see them superseded by much better versions of the same test. I completely agree, however this is something someone would have to take on as an effort and I don't believe I've seen anybody step up yet. At the current rate we're going to be dragging along the python dtests into perpetuity. On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 8:16 AM bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > I was sort of hoping we would retire the python dtests before long, at > least in large part (probably not ever entirely, but 99%). > > > > I think many of them could be migrated to in-jvm dtests without much > effort. I would hate to expend loads of effort modernising them when the > same effort could see them superseded by much better versions of the same > test. > > > > > > *From: *Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > *Date: *Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 12:59 > *To: *dev <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > *Subject: *Have we considered static type checking for our python libs? > > Relevant links: > > 1) Optional static typing for python: > https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html > > 2) Mypy static type checker for python: https://github.com/python/mypy > > > > So the question - has anyone given any serious thought to introducing type > hints and a static type checker in ccm and python dtests? A search on dev > ponymail doesn't turn up anything. > > > > I've used it pretty extensively in the past and found it incredibly > helpful combined with other linters in surfacing troublesome edge cases, > and also found it accelerated development quite a bit. > > > > Any thoughts on the topic for or against? > > > > ~Josh >
