+1 for tests/plugins. It should cut down on the confusion of someone trying to
use it as a ‘real’ plugin versus putting it in the plugins/* directory
structure.
On 6/2/17, 2:32 PM, "Leif Hedstrom" <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
+1 for tests/plugins as well.
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 for tests/plugins
>
> -Bryan
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Alan Carroll
<solidwallofc...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> PR 2042 has a special plugin in it which is used only for performing
tests. This is just the first of something that is going to occur repeatedly in
the future. These plugins are not written to be general purpose but will be
effectively custom built specifically for the test. We should decide now how we
want that structured. Some options are
>> * Put them in example.* Put them in tests/plugins* Put them in the
directory containing the test.
>> My personal preference is the second. I think these plugins are unlikely
to be good example plugins and they certainly aren't production ready. On the
other hand, having a single place to look for test plugins is in my view useful
and better than scattering them in different sub directories under tests.
>
