If we ban Mockito imports, I can still write tests using the full
qualifiers, right?
For example:
org.mockito.Mockito.when(somethingThatShouldHappen).thenReturn(somethingThatNeverActuallyHappens)
Just kidding, +1 on the proposal.
-Max
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 9:02 AM Panagiotis Garefalakis
<pga...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
