My sympathies :) I'm going to ping Bill Venners to see if we can get a release of ScalaTest for Scala 2.7.7 that works with the latest ScalaCheck.
alex On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> wrote: > While I agree that 2.8 should be our primary focus, I think it's important > to note that 2.7 isn't going away any time soon. A lot of companies which > have adopted Scala (such as Novell, where I work) are stuck on 2.7 for the > next several months, if not longer (unfortunately). That's just the nature > of software release cycles. > > With that said, I'm not advocating any special pains to stick with 2.7. > I'm > simply pointing out that we're in a situation where we have to choose > between two frameworks, one of which will work by default, while the other > will require extra effort from the user. Right now, ScalaTest works by > default because we have stuck with an old version of ScalaCheck, one which > is compatible with it. However, Specs does not work with the same version > of ScalaCheck because it was designed to be compatible with a more recent > one. So, we're really in an "either/or" sort of situation. > > Given that the choice is really between two frameworks, I think the only > way > to decide is to just pick the more up-to-date version of ScalaCheck (which > is the one compatible with Specs). I think this makes sense because the > problem is stemming from the fact that ScalaTest has *not* kept up > compatibility with the latest releases, and so really the burden of > operation rests with it. We can just add a note or something that users > who > want to use ScalaTest with ScalaCheck will need to explicitly set their > ScalaCheck version to 1.5. > > Daniel > > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Alex Boisvert <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > As scary as this may seem, I've migrated all my projects to Scala 2.8 and > > self-compiled versions of ScalaTest and ScalaCheck for 2.8 and I'm a > happy > > camper. (I don't use Specs anymore since ScalaTest has introduced > > WordSpec) > > > > I suspect our time is better invested in ensuring things work on 2.8 when > > the release settles down than trying to get 2.7 working perfectly. I > > doubt we'll get much support from the Scala crew at EPFL fixing issues on > > 2.7. > > > > My $0.02, > > alex > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > That's it. However, I have since discovered that the issue seems to be > > > 100% > > > repeatable and isn't dependent on any weird use of the integration. > Even > > > the simplest of Specs+ScalaCheck tests cause the Scala 2.7.7 compiler > to > > > crash when using Specs 1.6.2 and ScalaCheck 1.5. Things work just fine > > > with > > > ScalaCheck 1.6. > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Antoine Toulme < > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > That's the problem you describe with > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-410, right ? > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 20:24, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We *need* to address the issue of the ScalaCheck version, which is > > > > woefully > > > > > outdated and quite incompatible with Specs (and Scala 2.7.7 for > that > > > > > matter). I seem to recall that the current version (1.6) is > > > incompatible > > > > > with ScalaTest 1.0, but since ScalaTest hasn't made a release since > > > Scala > > > > > 2.7.3, I'm starting to wonder if it's worth holding back our > support > > > for > > > > > other frameworks just to keep it working out of the box. Users can > > > > always > > > > > set the scalacheck.version property (as they are currently forced > to > > do > > > > if > > > > > they want to use Specs). What say you? > > > > > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:20 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Author: boisvert > > > > > > Date: Mon Apr 5 02:20:17 2010 > > > > > > New Revision: 930784 > > > > > > > > > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=930784&view=rev > > > > > > Log: > > > > > > Upgrade to Scala Specs 1.6.2.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Modified: > > > > > > buildr/trunk/CHANGELOG > > > > > > buildr/trunk/lib/buildr/scala/bdd.rb > > > > > > > > > > > > Modified: buildr/trunk/CHANGELOG > > > > > > URL: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/buildr/trunk/CHANGELOG?rev=930784&r1=930783&r2=930784&view=diff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================== > > > > > > --- buildr/trunk/CHANGELOG (original) > > > > > > +++ buildr/trunk/CHANGELOG Mon Apr 5 02:20:17 2010 > > > > > > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ > > > > > > * Change: Updated to JUnit 4.7 > > > > > > * Change: Updated to JMock 2.5.1 (Antoine Toulme) > > > > > > * Change: Updated to RJB 1.2.0 > > > > > > -* Change: Updated to Scala Specs 1.6.2 > > > > > > +* Change: Updated to Scala Specs 1.6.2.1 > > > > > > * Change: Load buildr.rb from $HOME/.buildr instead of $HOME > > > > > > ($HOME/buildr.rb is still loaded with deprecation > > warning) > > > > > > * Change: BUILDR-400 Don't forbid projects to use their own > > compiler > > > > > after > > > > > > one has been guessed > > > > > > > > > > > > Modified: buildr/trunk/lib/buildr/scala/bdd.rb > > > > > > URL: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/buildr/trunk/lib/buildr/scala/bdd.rb?rev=930784&r1=930783&r2=930784&view=diff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================== > > > > > > --- buildr/trunk/lib/buildr/scala/bdd.rb (original) > > > > > > +++ buildr/trunk/lib/buildr/scala/bdd.rb Mon Apr 5 02:20:17 2010 > > > > > > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ module Buildr::Scala > > > > > > @lang = :scala > > > > > > @bdd_dir = :spec > > > > > > > > > > > > - VERSION = '1.6.2' > > > > > > + VERSION = '1.6.2.1' > > > > > > > > > > > > class << self > > > > > > def version > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
