Le mar. 17 déc. 2019 à 15:26, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Vladimir>Quidem, CalciteAssert > Michael>If you want to propose removing either of these, we could have a > Michael>discussion about it, but you're talking about code which is already > Michael>heavily used throughout Calcite. > > The point of "we assume contributors are good at Java, thus we must keep > the code to be Java-only" is weak. > New contributors will likely see Quidem and CalciteAssert for the first > time, and Java knowledge does not help there. >
I didn't make that point. Those are you words. > It does not imply that languages like Quidem and/or CalciteAssert are a bad > fit for their job, but it is wrong to judge > based solely on "it is not Java". > > Michael>The consensus from the discussion you started seems to be that > Michael>Kotlin should not be added to the tests > > It is not like that. I counted at least 5 different contributors stating they did not think Kotlin should be introduced into test code. You seemed to be the only one in the discussion strongly promoting it. If that's not consensus, I must have misinterpreted the discussion. > > Michael>I agree that for these specific tests, readability is improved > > That is exactly my point. There's an improvement, the downsides are small, > so I just committed it. > > Michael>But many tests require more than this > > That is to be discussed on a test by test basis (or use-case by use-case). > For instance, strings (especially, multi-line ones) with $ is an issue for > Kotlin for now. > > Vladimir
