Hi all,
We've discussed the idea of using a code formatter before, I finally had a
moment put up an example. Please take a look and provide feedback at your
convenience :-)
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/697
-ck
Good to hear. I've stubbed my toes going from Junit rules 4 to Junit 5
extensions. I don't want to take the time to do that now though.
Gary
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 14:42 Matt Sicker wrote:
> Most of the JUnit tests can be mechanically translated via IntelliJ
> (or other tools potentially). The
Most of the JUnit tests can be mechanically translated via IntelliJ
(or other tools potentially). The tests that need manual migration are
ones that use an expected exception in the @Test annotation and tests
that use rules. I've already ported most of the JUnit 4 rules into
equivalent JUnit 5 exte
I happy to stick with Junit 5 convertions once we drop Junit 4, which feels
like a tediuous big job :-(
Gafy
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 13:33 Carter Kozak wrote:
> +1
>
> I prefer minimum visibility by default for the same reason I prefer to
> make everything final by default: It gives us more freed
What is annoying is that the Jenkins builds seem to fail somewhere different
every time
and in places that I have never before seen fail.
Ralph
> On Jan 12, 2022, at 11:36 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Note that GitHub builds are green as are my local builds, both run twice as
> fast as this Je
Note that GitHub builds are green as are my local builds, both run twice as
fast as this Jenkins instance which I guess must be oversubscribed, nothing
bad about Jenkins itself of course.
Gary
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 13:03 Mr. Jenkins
wrote:
> *BUILD UNSTABLE*
> Build URL
> https://ci-builds.a
+1
I prefer minimum visibility by default for the same reason I prefer to make
everything final by default: It gives us more freedom to change later on. This
doesn't directly apply to tests, but it's nice when a convention applies
globally.
Most projects don't make junit5 tests public, so ther
Hi Matt,
Porting to Junit 5 would be nice. I'm not sure how to deal with all our
Junit 4 rules though.
Gary
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 13:07 Matt Sicker wrote:
> I'll note that the convention from JUnit 4 is to make them public;
> JUnit 5 encourages package-private tests instead for some reason, an
I'll note that the convention from JUnit 4 is to make them public;
JUnit 5 encourages package-private tests instead for some reason, and
that's the default template for JUnit 5 tests in IntelliJ. I do like
consistency, though!
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:01 AM wrote:
>
> This is an automated email
I'd prefer if we didn't incur implicit array allocation cost generating a hash
code. My preference is to keep the original implementation.
-ck
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, at 08:50, ggreg...@apache.org wrote:
> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
>
> ggregory pushed a c
10 matches
Mail list logo
