You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@logging.apache.org by Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@yazi.ci> on 2022/11/12 13:41:31 UTC
Exposing internal testing facilities (was: ETA for 2.19.1?)
I am concerned that users rely on test modules intended for internal usage.
I would rather skip all `*-test` modules during deployment. I am not
against shiping testing utilities for public consumption. But, AFAIC, these
modules were never intended for that purpose. This might bite us in the
long run since users would expect backward compatibility, which I expect to
be notably broken (for test modules!) in 3.0 release anyway.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <Je...@t-systems.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022, 15:58
Subject: AW: ETA for 2.19.1?
To: <lo...@logging.apache.org>
Hi Ralph,
Thanks for the answer. 😊
Yeah not a lot of fixes (one was for me) but it seems there was a major
refactoring of test-code into standalone JARs...
I just discovered the Junit hooks and have been using them out in my test
code - nice way of testing logging with a clean context.
With 2.19.1 I wouldn't need to go back and change the dependencies again
later... 😊 But I can still get at them with the current 2.19.0
"log4j-core:tests" dependency.
Cheers, Jeff
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. November 2022 16:39
An: Log4J Users List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
Betreff: Re: ETA for 2.19.1?
There have only been 2 issues fixed since 2.19.0 was released 2 months
ago. I normally wouldn’t perform a release for so few non-critical changes
after such a short period of time.
Ralph
> On Nov 10, 2022, at 1:10 AM, Jeffrey.Thomas@t-systems.com wrote:
>
> Hallo Log4j Team,
>
> any rough ETA on when a 2.19.1 release might take place?
>
> On one of my tickets I was told by the developer that you are all very
busy working on 3.x so I should give a shout out here for a little 2.x
love. 😊
>
> Cheers, Jeff
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Exposing internal testing facilities (was: ETA for 2.19.1?)
Posted by Matt Sicker <ma...@musigma.org>.
We’d need to cover a few test scenarios:
* Test fixtures for API
* Test fixtures for Core
* Test plugins for testing the plugin processor (need to break the dependency cycle here, hence the existence of log4j-plugins-test)
The first two things should be published like you said, while the rest can be kept as test-only or at least ignored during publishing.
—
Matt Sicker
> On Nov 13, 2022, at 01:52, Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@yazi.ci> wrote:
>
> Can't we simply create a `log4j-[test-]junit` module containing the tooling
> accepted for public consumption and stop deploying the rest of the `*-test`
> modules?
>
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, 16:51 Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> FWIW,
>>
>> I reply on some of the test framework like JUnit rules in work projects, it
>> would be lame to have to reinvent the wheel.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 08:41 Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@yazi.ci> wrote:
>>
>>> I am concerned that users rely on test modules intended for internal
>> usage.
>>> I would rather skip all `*-test` modules during deployment. I am not
>>> against shiping testing utilities for public consumption. But, AFAIC,
>> these
>>> modules were never intended for that purpose. This might bite us in the
>>> long run since users would expect backward compatibility, which I expect
>> to
>>> be notably broken (for test modules!) in 3.0 release anyway.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> From: <Je...@t-systems.com>
>>> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022, 15:58
>>> Subject: AW: ETA for 2.19.1?
>>> To: <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the answer. 😊
>>>
>>> Yeah not a lot of fixes (one was for me) but it seems there was a major
>>> refactoring of test-code into standalone JARs...
>>>
>>> I just discovered the Junit hooks and have been using them out in my test
>>> code - nice way of testing logging with a clean context.
>>>
>>> With 2.19.1 I wouldn't need to go back and change the dependencies again
>>> later... 😊 But I can still get at them with the current 2.19.0
>>> "log4j-core:tests" dependency.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. November 2022 16:39
>>> An: Log4J Users List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>>> Betreff: Re: ETA for 2.19.1?
>>>
>>> There have only been 2 issues fixed since 2.19.0 was released 2 months
>>> ago. I normally wouldn’t perform a release for so few non-critical
>> changes
>>> after such a short period of time.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>> On Nov 10, 2022, at 1:10 AM, Jeffrey.Thomas@t-systems.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hallo Log4j Team,
>>>>
>>>> any rough ETA on when a 2.19.1 release might take place?
>>>>
>>>> On one of my tickets I was told by the developer that you are all very
>>> busy working on 3.x so I should give a shout out here for a little 2.x
>>> love. 😊
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Jeff
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>>
>>
Re: Exposing internal testing facilities (was: ETA for 2.19.1?)
Posted by Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@yazi.ci>.
Can't we simply create a `log4j-[test-]junit` module containing the tooling
accepted for public consumption and stop deploying the rest of the `*-test`
modules?
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, 16:51 Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW,
>
> I reply on some of the test framework like JUnit rules in work projects, it
> would be lame to have to reinvent the wheel.
>
> Gary
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 08:41 Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@yazi.ci> wrote:
>
> > I am concerned that users rely on test modules intended for internal
> usage.
> > I would rather skip all `*-test` modules during deployment. I am not
> > against shiping testing utilities for public consumption. But, AFAIC,
> these
> > modules were never intended for that purpose. This might bite us in the
> > long run since users would expect backward compatibility, which I expect
> to
> > be notably broken (for test modules!) in 3.0 release anyway.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: <Je...@t-systems.com>
> > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022, 15:58
> > Subject: AW: ETA for 2.19.1?
> > To: <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> >
> >
> > Hi Ralph,
> >
> > Thanks for the answer. 😊
> >
> > Yeah not a lot of fixes (one was for me) but it seems there was a major
> > refactoring of test-code into standalone JARs...
> >
> > I just discovered the Junit hooks and have been using them out in my test
> > code - nice way of testing logging with a clean context.
> >
> > With 2.19.1 I wouldn't need to go back and change the dependencies again
> > later... 😊 But I can still get at them with the current 2.19.0
> > "log4j-core:tests" dependency.
> >
> > Cheers, Jeff
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. November 2022 16:39
> > An: Log4J Users List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> > Betreff: Re: ETA for 2.19.1?
> >
> > There have only been 2 issues fixed since 2.19.0 was released 2 months
> > ago. I normally wouldn’t perform a release for so few non-critical
> changes
> > after such a short period of time.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > On Nov 10, 2022, at 1:10 AM, Jeffrey.Thomas@t-systems.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Hallo Log4j Team,
> > >
> > > any rough ETA on when a 2.19.1 release might take place?
> > >
> > > On one of my tickets I was told by the developer that you are all very
> > busy working on 3.x so I should give a shout out here for a little 2.x
> > love. 😊
> > >
> > > Cheers, Jeff
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> >
>
Re: Exposing internal testing facilities (was: ETA for 2.19.1?)
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
FWIW, I think it is fair to say that we don’t have the same compatibility requirements
for our test artifacts as we do for the stuff used at runtime. That said, we can easily
say that classes used in multiple places throughout Log4j are less likely to change in
an incompatible way simply due to the effort required to do it.
Ralph
> On Nov 12, 2022, at 2:25 PM, Matt Sicker <ma...@musigma.org> wrote:
>
> The fact that the test fixture stuff has been moved into log4j-core-test instead of log4j-core:tests makes it easier to support I think.
> —
> Matt Sicker
>
>> On Nov 12, 2022, at 09:50, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> FWIW,
>>
>> I reply on some of the test framework like JUnit rules in work projects, it
>> would be lame to have to reinvent the wheel.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 08:41 Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@yazi.ci> wrote:
>>
>>> I am concerned that users rely on test modules intended for internal usage.
>>> I would rather skip all `*-test` modules during deployment. I am not
>>> against shiping testing utilities for public consumption. But, AFAIC, these
>>> modules were never intended for that purpose. This might bite us in the
>>> long run since users would expect backward compatibility, which I expect to
>>> be notably broken (for test modules!) in 3.0 release anyway.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> From: <Je...@t-systems.com>
>>> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022, 15:58
>>> Subject: AW: ETA for 2.19.1?
>>> To: <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the answer. 😊
>>>
>>> Yeah not a lot of fixes (one was for me) but it seems there was a major
>>> refactoring of test-code into standalone JARs...
>>>
>>> I just discovered the Junit hooks and have been using them out in my test
>>> code - nice way of testing logging with a clean context.
>>>
>>> With 2.19.1 I wouldn't need to go back and change the dependencies again
>>> later... 😊 But I can still get at them with the current 2.19.0
>>> "log4j-core:tests" dependency.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. November 2022 16:39
>>> An: Log4J Users List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>>> Betreff: Re: ETA for 2.19.1?
>>>
>>> There have only been 2 issues fixed since 2.19.0 was released 2 months
>>> ago. I normally wouldn’t perform a release for so few non-critical changes
>>> after such a short period of time.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>> On Nov 10, 2022, at 1:10 AM, Jeffrey.Thomas@t-systems.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hallo Log4j Team,
>>>>
>>>> any rough ETA on when a 2.19.1 release might take place?
>>>>
>>>> On one of my tickets I was told by the developer that you are all very
>>> busy working on 3.x so I should give a shout out here for a little 2.x
>>> love. 😊
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Jeff
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>>
>
>
>
> —
> Matt Sicker
>
Re: Exposing internal testing facilities (was: ETA for 2.19.1?)
Posted by Matt Sicker <ma...@musigma.org>.
The fact that the test fixture stuff has been moved into log4j-core-test instead of log4j-core:tests makes it easier to support I think.
—
Matt Sicker
> On Nov 12, 2022, at 09:50, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW,
>
> I reply on some of the test framework like JUnit rules in work projects, it
> would be lame to have to reinvent the wheel.
>
> Gary
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 08:41 Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@yazi.ci> wrote:
>
>> I am concerned that users rely on test modules intended for internal usage.
>> I would rather skip all `*-test` modules during deployment. I am not
>> against shiping testing utilities for public consumption. But, AFAIC, these
>> modules were never intended for that purpose. This might bite us in the
>> long run since users would expect backward compatibility, which I expect to
>> be notably broken (for test modules!) in 3.0 release anyway.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: <Je...@t-systems.com>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022, 15:58
>> Subject: AW: ETA for 2.19.1?
>> To: <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>>
>>
>> Hi Ralph,
>>
>> Thanks for the answer. 😊
>>
>> Yeah not a lot of fixes (one was for me) but it seems there was a major
>> refactoring of test-code into standalone JARs...
>>
>> I just discovered the Junit hooks and have been using them out in my test
>> code - nice way of testing logging with a clean context.
>>
>> With 2.19.1 I wouldn't need to go back and change the dependencies again
>> later... 😊 But I can still get at them with the current 2.19.0
>> "log4j-core:tests" dependency.
>>
>> Cheers, Jeff
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. November 2022 16:39
>> An: Log4J Users List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>> Betreff: Re: ETA for 2.19.1?
>>
>> There have only been 2 issues fixed since 2.19.0 was released 2 months
>> ago. I normally wouldn’t perform a release for so few non-critical changes
>> after such a short period of time.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2022, at 1:10 AM, Jeffrey.Thomas@t-systems.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Hallo Log4j Team,
>>>
>>> any rough ETA on when a 2.19.1 release might take place?
>>>
>>> On one of my tickets I was told by the developer that you are all very
>> busy working on 3.x so I should give a shout out here for a little 2.x
>> love. 😊
>>>
>>> Cheers, Jeff
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>
—
Matt Sicker
Re: Exposing internal testing facilities (was: ETA for 2.19.1?)
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
FWIW,
I reply on some of the test framework like JUnit rules in work projects, it
would be lame to have to reinvent the wheel.
Gary
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 08:41 Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@yazi.ci> wrote:
> I am concerned that users rely on test modules intended for internal usage.
> I would rather skip all `*-test` modules during deployment. I am not
> against shiping testing utilities for public consumption. But, AFAIC, these
> modules were never intended for that purpose. This might bite us in the
> long run since users would expect backward compatibility, which I expect to
> be notably broken (for test modules!) in 3.0 release anyway.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <Je...@t-systems.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022, 15:58
> Subject: AW: ETA for 2.19.1?
> To: <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> Thanks for the answer. 😊
>
> Yeah not a lot of fixes (one was for me) but it seems there was a major
> refactoring of test-code into standalone JARs...
>
> I just discovered the Junit hooks and have been using them out in my test
> code - nice way of testing logging with a clean context.
>
> With 2.19.1 I wouldn't need to go back and change the dependencies again
> later... 😊 But I can still get at them with the current 2.19.0
> "log4j-core:tests" dependency.
>
> Cheers, Jeff
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. November 2022 16:39
> An: Log4J Users List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> Betreff: Re: ETA for 2.19.1?
>
> There have only been 2 issues fixed since 2.19.0 was released 2 months
> ago. I normally wouldn’t perform a release for so few non-critical changes
> after such a short period of time.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Nov 10, 2022, at 1:10 AM, Jeffrey.Thomas@t-systems.com wrote:
> >
> > Hallo Log4j Team,
> >
> > any rough ETA on when a 2.19.1 release might take place?
> >
> > On one of my tickets I was told by the developer that you are all very
> busy working on 3.x so I should give a shout out here for a little 2.x
> love. 😊
> >
> > Cheers, Jeff
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>