Thanks @Panagiotis for the hint! Does it mean that those suppressions need to be cleaned up continuously while we move forward with Junit5 migration(extra guideline is required), even if regex has been used? Or we just leave them as they are and clean them up in one shot after every junit4 has been migrated to junit5.
Best regards, Jing On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 9:02 AM Panagiotis Garefalakis <pga...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for bringing this up! +1 for the proposal > > @Jing Ge -- we don't necessarily need to completely migrate to Junit5 (even > though it would be ideal). > We could introduce the checkstyle rule and add suppressions for the > existing problematic paths (as we do today for other rules e.g., > AvoidStarImport) > > Cheers, > Panagiotis > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 11:48 PM Weihua Hu <huweihua....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for driving this. > > > > +1 for Mockito and Junit4. > > > > A clarity checkstyle will be of great help to new developers. > > > > Best, > > Weihua > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 1:47 PM Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > This is a great idea, thanks for bringing this up. +1 > > > > > > Also +1 for Junit4. If I am not mistaken, it could only be done after > the > > > Junit5 migration is done. > > > > > > @Chesnay thanks for the hint. Do we have any doc about it? If not, it > > might > > > deserve one. WDYT? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Jing > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 5:13 AM Lijie Wang <wangdachui9...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for driving this. +1 for the proposal. > > > > > > > > Can we also prevent Junit4 usage in new code by this way？Because > > > currently > > > > we are aiming to migrate our codebase to JUnit 5. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Lijie > > > > > > > > Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> 于2023年4月25日周二 23:02写道： > > > > > > > > > Ok, thanks for the clarification. > > > > > > > > > > Piotrek > > > > > > > > > > wt., 25 kwi 2023 o 16:38 Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > The checkstyle rule would just ban certain imports. > > > > > > We'd add exclusions for all existing usages as we did when > > > introducing > > > > > > other rules. > > > > > > So far we usually disabled checkstyle rules for a specific files. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 25/04/2023 16:34, Piotr Nowojski wrote: > > > > > > > +1 to the idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would this checkstyle rule work? Are you suggesting to > start > > > > with a > > > > > > > number of exclusions? On what level will those exclusions be? > Per > > > > file? > > > > > > Per > > > > > > > line? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Piotrek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wt., 25 kwi 2023 o 13:18 David Morávek <d...@apache.org> > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Everyone, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> A long time ago, the community decided not to use > Mockito-based > > > > tests > > > > > > >> because those are hard to maintain. This is already baked in > our > > > > Code > > > > > > Style > > > > > > >> and Quality Guide [1]. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Because we still have Mockito imported into the code base, > it's > > > very > > > > > > easy > > > > > > >> for newcomers to unconsciously introduce new tests violating > the > > > > code > > > > > > style > > > > > > >> because they're unaware of the decision. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I propose to prevent Mockito usage with a Checkstyle rule for > a > > > new > > > > > > code, > > > > > > >> which would eventually allow us to eliminate it. This could > also > > > > > prevent > > > > > > >> some wasted work and unnecessary feedback cycles during > reviews. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> WDYT? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> [1] > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://flink.apache.org/how-to-contribute/code-style-and-quality-common/#avoid-mockito---use-reusable-test-implementations > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Best, > > > > > > >> D. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
