+1 to allow in tests
> On Jan 9, 2025, at 10:58 AM, Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to allowing in tests for now
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 12:51 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org
> <mailto:m...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Jumping in, I'm ok to allow it in tests for a trial period too. I would
>> imagine in test methods especially it's of much less concern, where the code
>> is much simpler to read, and also safer to change to types later on.
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 at 16:46, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org
>> <mailto:jmcken...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>> I would like to remove this altogether from tests and ban it too in a week
>>>> or two.
>>> I took "ban it too in a week or two" as an indicator of intent. Looks like
>>> that's not what you intended.
>>>
>>> I believe at least David and I both use and would like to continue using
>>> "var" when working on tests. As for the rest of the people in favor of it
>>> in the thread, I don't have an intuition there.
>>>
>>> There's no real harm in us banning it in prod checkstyle and leaving it in
>>> tests for now. We can always ban it later if a super majority comes out of
>>> the woodwork saying they hate it. /shrug
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025, at 4:05 AM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote:
>>>> Indeed, we don't. That's what "I would like to" means.
>>>>
>>>> I asked additional questions on 5th November wanting to know more about
>>>> people advocating for vars in tests -> no response.
>>>>
>>>> I also do not see any vars added since then.
>>>>
>>>> So, what do we have vars enabled for?
>>>>
>>>> 1) not enough time has passed, meaning we might see vars in tests
>>>> committed in the future, it is just too soon to see that.
>>>> 2) people are using vars locally but they are rewriting that to full types
>>>> upon committing?
>>>>
>>>> If 2) is true, why don't they just commit vars as we said it is OK, so 1)
>>>> would not be the case?
>>>>
>>>> If people want to use vars but they do not want to commit that, they can
>>>> still do it and build the project with -Dno-checkstyle=true.
>>>>
>>>> There were more people coming, saying they don't want to see that
>>>> anywhere, after we banned that in the production code and that somehow
>>>> tilted the scale in favor of banning for me but it was too late.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 3:25 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org
>>>> <mailto:jmcken...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to remove this altogether from tests and ban it too in a
>>>>> week or two.
>>>> Don't think we had clear consensus here.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 5, 2025, at 5:42 PM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote:
>>>>> I would like to remove this altogether from tests and ban it too in a
>>>>> week or two.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that Berenguer and Ariel are against that completely and Maxim as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was waiting for some time to see if the usage of this takes place so we
>>>>> do not ban that for people who might use that prematurely but I just
>>>>> don't see that happening.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 11:25 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org
>>>>> <mailto:mmu...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>>> To me, this sounds like the style consistency throughout the project,
>>>>> so if we just allowed having the "var" keyword we would have a mix of
>>>>> new and old styles without any distant prospect of a unified style.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should evolve the code style from one unified form to another, thus
>>>>> either we use it everywhere and fix all the places where it's
>>>>> applicable, or forbid it, avoid having "mixed" styles. If everyone
>>>>> coded the way they liked, it would be a mess.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would vote -0.5 to allow it, and +1 to forbid it everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 at 00:02, Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org
>>>>> <mailto:smikloso...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > People who are OK with vars in tests - are you also the ones who are
>>>>> > going to write vars from now on yourself or you just do not mind if you
>>>>> > encounter it?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > There is a difference between
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "keep it in tests, I am going to use this, this is actually a good idea"
>>>>> >
>>>>> > and
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "keep it in tests if people are going to use it, I do not mind but I am
>>>>> > not going to change my style".
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If the latter is the case, then who is actually going to write tests on
>>>>> > a daily basis with vars? If one or two people then I guess it does not
>>>>> > make a lot of sense to keep it around.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 11:10 PM Ariel Weisberg <ar...@weisberg.ws
>>>>> > <mailto:ar...@weisberg.ws>> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Hi,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I don’t like `var` anywhere. Even if IntelliJ could automatically
>>>>> >> insert the concrete type it would still be a problem in the GH compare
>>>>> >> view. GH compare view is a real problem, because any time something is
>>>>> >> sufficiently obfuscated I have to bounce back and forth with an IDE,
>>>>> >> check out the code etc or just proceed with a weaker mental model of
>>>>> >> what is going on.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I have finite mental energy to expend every day and I don’t want to
>>>>> >> spend it hunting down and then recalling what each instance of var
>>>>> >> means repeatedly. It uses almost no energy to read past extra type
>>>>> >> information (formatting means I don’t even need to parse it) or do a
>>>>> >> little extra typing/autocomplete
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Ariel
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024, at 1:13 PM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Hello,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> this should give you an idea
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> grep --include '*.java' -r 'var ' src/ test/
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I think this is a new concept here which was introduced recently with
>>>>> >> support of Java 11 / Java 17 after we dropped 8.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> What is your opinion? Are we free to use it wherever we want? I am
>>>>> >> quite conservative in this area and I will most probably still use
>>>>> >> types as we know them but maybe in tests we might relax it a little
>>>>> >> bit? Or production code with "var" is totally fine too without any
>>>>> >> concerns? I think this should be covered by the code style.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Regards
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>
