You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by Roc Marshal <fl...@126.com> on 2022/04/07 13:22:22 UTC
[VOTE] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ
Hi Pulsar community,
Start voting for [DISCUSS] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ . It will stay open for at least 48 hours.
The discussion thread is https://lists.apache.org/thread/fo43qg3jtoqy62j2zyro3j88jfhtbnpr .
I make the two options based on the discussion:
[1] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ Completely
[2] Just Introduce AssertJ assertion API into new test cases.
Please let me know what's your opinion on [1] or [2], or other options from you.
Thanks,
Roc Marshal.
Re: [VOTE] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
Hi -
Sorry for this delayed reply.
> On Apr 7, 2022, at 7:04 PM, Roc Marshal <fl...@126.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Dave.<br/><br/>Thank you very much for your reply.<br/>A little confusions from me:<br/>- As you said, the option [2] may be only used as a specification to restrict the coding specification of PR test cases in the future. If so, What does the new PR need to record based on master branch ?
Yes. You should propose small changes as a PR on the master branch
> <br/>- There is no consensus for considering option [1] now. Does this mean that making a PIP make no much sense?
Correct. Changing all the tests is a huge amount of work.
All the best,
Dave
> <br/><br/>Thanks,<br/>Roc
> At 2022-04-07 22:16:40, "Dave Fisher" <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi -
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2022, at 6:22 AM, Roc Marshal <fl...@126.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Pulsar community,
>>>
>>>
>>> Start voting for [DISCUSS] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ . It will stay open for at least 48 hours.
>>> The discussion thread is https://lists.apache.org/thread/fo43qg3jtoqy62j2zyro3j88jfhtbnpr .
>>
>> I reread this thread. Thanks for providing the link.
>>
>>> I make the two options based on the discussion:
>>> [1] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ Completely
>>
>> In the thread there is no consensus for considering this option.
>>
>>> [2] Just Introduce AssertJ assertion API into new test cases.
>>
>> There may be consensus for this option.
>>
>>> Please let me know what's your opinion on [1] or [2], or other options from you.
>>
>> We do not VOTE on just any DISCUSSION. We attempt to find consensus first.
>>
>> When we do VOTE after a DISCUSSION it is for one of two things. (A) Releases and (B) Pulsar Improvement Proposals (PIPs). This suggestion is neither at this time.
>>
>> If you want to go forward with [1] a formal PIP is required. For [2] you should start with a PR on the main branch.
>>
>> Have you had a look here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki
>>
>> ATB,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Roc Marshal.
Re:Re: [VOTE] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ
Posted by Roc Marshal <fl...@126.com>.
Hi, Dave.<br/><br/>Thank you very much for your reply.<br/>A little confusions from me:<br/>- As you said, the option [2] may be only used as a specification to restrict the coding specification of PR test cases in the future. If so, What does the new PR need to record based on master branch ? <br/>- There is no consensus for considering option [1] now. Does this mean that making a PIP make no much sense?<br/><br/>Thanks,<br/>Roc
At 2022-04-07 22:16:40, "Dave Fisher" <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>Hi -
>
>> On Apr 7, 2022, at 6:22 AM, Roc Marshal <fl...@126.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pulsar community,
>>
>>
>> Start voting for [DISCUSS] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ . It will stay open for at least 48 hours.
>> The discussion thread is https://lists.apache.org/thread/fo43qg3jtoqy62j2zyro3j88jfhtbnpr .
>
>I reread this thread. Thanks for providing the link.
>
>> I make the two options based on the discussion:
>> [1] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ Completely
>
>In the thread there is no consensus for considering this option.
>
>> [2] Just Introduce AssertJ assertion API into new test cases.
>
>There may be consensus for this option.
>
>> Please let me know what's your opinion on [1] or [2], or other options from you.
>
>We do not VOTE on just any DISCUSSION. We attempt to find consensus first.
>
>When we do VOTE after a DISCUSSION it is for one of two things. (A) Releases and (B) Pulsar Improvement Proposals (PIPs). This suggestion is neither at this time.
>
>If you want to go forward with [1] a formal PIP is required. For [2] you should start with a PR on the main branch.
>
>Have you had a look here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki
>
>ATB,
>Dave
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Roc Marshal.
Re: [VOTE] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
Hi -
> On Apr 7, 2022, at 6:22 AM, Roc Marshal <fl...@126.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Pulsar community,
>
>
> Start voting for [DISCUSS] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ . It will stay open for at least 48 hours.
> The discussion thread is https://lists.apache.org/thread/fo43qg3jtoqy62j2zyro3j88jfhtbnpr .
I reread this thread. Thanks for providing the link.
> I make the two options based on the discussion:
> [1] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ Completely
In the thread there is no consensus for considering this option.
> [2] Just Introduce AssertJ assertion API into new test cases.
There may be consensus for this option.
> Please let me know what's your opinion on [1] or [2], or other options from you.
We do not VOTE on just any DISCUSSION. We attempt to find consensus first.
When we do VOTE after a DISCUSSION it is for one of two things. (A) Releases and (B) Pulsar Improvement Proposals (PIPs). This suggestion is neither at this time.
If you want to go forward with [1] a formal PIP is required. For [2] you should start with a PR on the main branch.
Have you had a look here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki
ATB,
Dave
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roc Marshal.