I remain +1 to allow in tests. Kind Regards, Brandon
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 3:20 PM David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com> wrote: > > +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> 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> 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> 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> 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> >>> 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> 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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >
