You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> on 2015/08/03 10:50:45 UTC
Dependency for hamcrest?
Do we want to use the new 2.0.0.0 version of hamcrest, or stick with
the dependency from junit (1.3)?
I ask because we have a dependency convergence error in our poms since
junit includes 1.3 and our POMs say 2.0.0.0.
I've excluded hamcrest from junit, but then we run into a compilation
error (in WicketTester), that I can probably fix, but is that what we
want?
So which way do we want to go?
Martijn
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Dependency for hamcrest?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
It appears that we needed the full hamcrest library at compile time
for just one assert in WicketTester. I've rewritten that assert to
assertTrue() to keep the hamcrest dependencies at scope test. This
keeps our dependencies at the bare minimum (unless we are going to
implement our own hamcrest matchers, but I'd rather have that be an
optional module should we choose to go down that path)
Martijn
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And not helped by the differences between maven and m2eclipse. I'll
> look into the build error after lunch.
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Martijn Dashorst
> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fixed. Not helped by the awesome documentation of hamcrest...
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm +1 for 2.0 unless it breaks something bad.
>>> AFAIK junit.next will come without hamcrest.
>>>
>>> Martin Grigorov
>>> Freelancer. Available for hire!
>>> Wicket Training and Consulting
>>> https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Martijn Dashorst <
>>> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we want to use the new 2.0.0.0 version of hamcrest, or stick with
>>>> the dependency from junit (1.3)?
>>>>
>>>> I ask because we have a dependency convergence error in our poms since
>>>> junit includes 1.3 and our POMs say 2.0.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> I've excluded hamcrest from junit, but then we run into a compilation
>>>> error (in WicketTester), that I can probably fix, but is that what we
>>>> want?
>>>>
>>>> So which way do we want to go?
>>>>
>>>> Martijn
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Dependency for hamcrest?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
And not helped by the differences between maven and m2eclipse. I'll
look into the build error after lunch.
Martijn
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fixed. Not helped by the awesome documentation of hamcrest...
>
> Martijn
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm +1 for 2.0 unless it breaks something bad.
>> AFAIK junit.next will come without hamcrest.
>>
>> Martin Grigorov
>> Freelancer. Available for hire!
>> Wicket Training and Consulting
>> https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Martijn Dashorst <
>> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do we want to use the new 2.0.0.0 version of hamcrest, or stick with
>>> the dependency from junit (1.3)?
>>>
>>> I ask because we have a dependency convergence error in our poms since
>>> junit includes 1.3 and our POMs say 2.0.0.0.
>>>
>>> I've excluded hamcrest from junit, but then we run into a compilation
>>> error (in WicketTester), that I can probably fix, but is that what we
>>> want?
>>>
>>> So which way do we want to go?
>>>
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>> --
>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Dependency for hamcrest?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Fixed. Not helped by the awesome documentation of hamcrest...
Martijn
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm +1 for 2.0 unless it breaks something bad.
> AFAIK junit.next will come without hamcrest.
>
> Martin Grigorov
> Freelancer. Available for hire!
> Wicket Training and Consulting
> https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Martijn Dashorst <
> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do we want to use the new 2.0.0.0 version of hamcrest, or stick with
>> the dependency from junit (1.3)?
>>
>> I ask because we have a dependency convergence error in our poms since
>> junit includes 1.3 and our POMs say 2.0.0.0.
>>
>> I've excluded hamcrest from junit, but then we run into a compilation
>> error (in WicketTester), that I can probably fix, but is that what we
>> want?
>>
>> So which way do we want to go?
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> --
>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Dependency for hamcrest?
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I'm +1 for 2.0 unless it breaks something bad.
AFAIK junit.next will come without hamcrest.
Martin Grigorov
Freelancer. Available for hire!
Wicket Training and Consulting
https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we want to use the new 2.0.0.0 version of hamcrest, or stick with
> the dependency from junit (1.3)?
>
> I ask because we have a dependency convergence error in our poms since
> junit includes 1.3 and our POMs say 2.0.0.0.
>
> I've excluded hamcrest from junit, but then we run into a compilation
> error (in WicketTester), that I can probably fix, but is that what we
> want?
>
> So which way do we want to go?
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>