Ok let's keep it then. On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 10:26 PM Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >
