Thanks for bringing this up! +1 for the proposal @Jing Ge -- we don't necessarily need to completely migrate to Junit5 (even though it would be ideal). We could introduce the checkstyle rule and add suppressions for the existing problematic paths (as we do today for other rules e.g., AvoidStarImport)
Cheers, Panagiotis On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 11:48 PM Weihua Hu <huweihua....@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for driving this. > > +1 for Mockito and Junit4. > > A clarity checkstyle will be of great help to new developers. > > Best, > Weihua > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 1:47 PM Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > This is a great idea, thanks for bringing this up. +1 > > > > Also +1 for Junit4. If I am not mistaken, it could only be done after the > > Junit5 migration is done. > > > > @Chesnay thanks for the hint. Do we have any doc about it? If not, it > might > > deserve one. WDYT? > > > > Best regards, > > Jing > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 5:13 AM Lijie Wang <wangdachui9...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for driving this. +1 for the proposal. > > > > > > Can we also prevent Junit4 usage in new code by this way？Because > > currently > > > we are aiming to migrate our codebase to JUnit 5. > > > > > > Best, > > > Lijie > > > > > > Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> 于2023年4月25日周二 23:02写道： > > > > > > > Ok, thanks for the clarification. > > > > > > > > Piotrek > > > > > > > > wt., 25 kwi 2023 o 16:38 Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > The checkstyle rule would just ban certain imports. > > > > > We'd add exclusions for all existing usages as we did when > > introducing > > > > > other rules. > > > > > So far we usually disabled checkstyle rules for a specific files. > > > > > > > > > > On 25/04/2023 16:34, Piotr Nowojski wrote: > > > > > > +1 to the idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > How would this checkstyle rule work? Are you suggesting to start > > > with a > > > > > > number of exclusions? On what level will those exclusions be? Per > > > file? > > > > > Per > > > > > > line? > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Piotrek > > > > > > > > > > > > wt., 25 kwi 2023 o 13:18 David Morávek <d...@apache.org> > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Everyone, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> A long time ago, the community decided not to use Mockito-based > > > tests > > > > > >> because those are hard to maintain. This is already baked in our > > > Code > > > > > Style > > > > > >> and Quality Guide [1]. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Because we still have Mockito imported into the code base, it's > > very > > > > > easy > > > > > >> for newcomers to unconsciously introduce new tests violating the > > > code > > > > > style > > > > > >> because they're unaware of the decision. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I propose to prevent Mockito usage with a Checkstyle rule for a > > new > > > > > code, > > > > > >> which would eventually allow us to eliminate it. This could also > > > > prevent > > > > > >> some wasted work and unnecessary feedback cycles during reviews. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> WDYT? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> [1] > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://flink.apache.org/how-to-contribute/code-style-and-quality-common/#avoid-mockito---use-reusable-test-implementations > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Best, > > > > > >> D. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
